Comparison of Post-Stroke Functional Recovery between Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
pathophysiologic mechanism that underlies each stroke type may give different outcome in post-stroke patients. This study aimed to compare the improvement of functional outcome between both types of stroke among stroke patients admitted to Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital (RSHS). Methods: Consecutive sampling was carried out on first-ever stroke patients admitted to neurological inpatient unit of RSHS from September 2015 to October 2015. Functional recovery, measured by subtracting Canadian Neurological Scale (CNS) on day-8 and day-1 of admission, was compared among two subgroups and analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test. Baseline characteristics were collected and analyzed. Results: Total of thirteen stroke patients was included in this study: ten ischemic stroke and three hemorrhagic stroke patients. CNS score improvement between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients was not significantly different. However, hemorrhagic stroke had higher score than ischemic stroke with 0.30 CNS score difference. Conclusions: CNS improvement between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke was not significantly different. DOI: 10.15850/amj.v4n2.1069
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".