Are there opportunities for a closer collaboration on clinical stroke research in Europe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One of the aims of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) is to facilitate academic, multinational clinical stroke research. However, despite examples of successful regional and national stroke research networks and collaborative groups, there is no organisational structure at a European level that can facilitate multinational clinical stroke research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a project including a survey and a workshop and involving stroke researchers in the ESO, we sought to identify the challenges faced by existing clinical stroke research networks, to define the purpose and roles of any future European stroke research collaboration, and to propose an organisational structure. RESULTS: The survey and workshop gave strong support for an alliance model with independent network members, with the purpose of facilitating clinical stroke research through improved coordination and communication, provision of support, education, and advocacy and communication with other stakeholders. The focus of a proposed European clinical stroke research alliance should be multinational randomised-controlled trials in acute care, prevention and rehabilitation, but the alliance could also support other forms of multi-national clinical stroke research. CONCLUSION: There is an interest for increased collaboration on multinational clinical stroke research in Europe, in the form of an alliance of independent research networks and collaborative groups. The ESO Trials Network Committee will continue consultation with existing stroke research networks and collaborative groups, and other key stakeholders, to assess the feasibility and support for development of an ESO Trials Alliance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".