MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741598533 · doi:10.1177/2396987317724052

Stroke profile and outcome between urban and rural regions of Northwest India: Data from Ludhiana population-based stroke registry

2017· article· en· W2741598533 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)PopulationRural areaRural populationDemographyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical profile, risk factors, type and outcome of stroke patients in urban and rural areas of Punjab, India. METHODS: The primary data source was from the Ludhiana urban population-based stroke registry. The data of first-ever stroke patients with age ≥18 years were collected using WHO stepwise approach from all hospitals, general practitioners, physiotherapy and scan centres between 26 March 2011 and 25 March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 4989 patients were included and out of 4989 patients, 3469 (69%) were from urban areas. Haemorrhagic stroke was seen more in rural as compared to urban regions (urban 1104 (32%) versus rural 552 (36%); p = 0.01). There were significant differences seen in stroke risk factors; hypertension (urban 1923 (84%) versus rural 926 (89%); p = 0.001) and hyperlipidaemia (urban 397 (18%) versus rural 234 (23%); p = 0.001) between two groups. In the multivariable analysis the rural patients were more likely to be younger (age < 40 years) (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.24-2.68; p = 0.002), Sikhs (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.26-5.22; p = 0.009), farmers (OR: 9.41; 95% CI: 5.36-16.50; p < 0.001), housewives (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.45-5.06; p = 0.002), and consumed alcohol (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.19-2.06; p = 0.001) as compared to urban patients. In addition, use of imaging was higher in rural patients (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.06-3.74; p = 0.03) as compared to urban patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients, rural and urban differences were seen in risk factors and type of stroke. Stroke prevention strategies need to take into consideration these factors including regional sociocultural practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it