MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2896596407 · doi:10.1161/str.49.suppl_1.5

Abstract 5: Differences in Stroke Care Among Patients in the REGARDS Study by Admission to a Hospital Participating versus Not Participating in GWTG-Stroke

2018· article· en· W2896596407 on OpenAlexaff
George Howard, Lee H. Schwamm, Virginia J. Howard, J. Rhodes, Adam Jasne, Eric E. Smith, Brett Kissela, Gregg C. Fonarow, Dawn Kleindorfer, Daniel T. Lackland, Suzanne E. Judd, Matthew L. Flaherty, Mary Cushman, Karen C. Albright

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)PopulationLogistic regressionCohortEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke is a stroke-care quality-improvement program implemented in 1,656 of 5,564 (30%) US hospitals; however, the assessment of the effectiveness of GWTG is limited by the lack of data from hospitals not participating in the program. Methods: The REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) is a national population-based longitudinal cohort study of 30,239 black & white participants aged 45+ years. Participants with an incident stroke were hospitalized in their local hospital. The proportion of patients receiving each of 10 quality-care metrics was calculated among the stroke victims admitted to hospitals with and without GWTG-Stroke. Logistic regression was used to adjust for participant and hospital differences of those seen in GWTG/non-GWTG hospitals. Results: Between 2003 and 2015, 207 of the 546 (38%) REGARDS participants suffering an ischemic stroke were treated in a hospital currently participating in the GWTG-Stroke program (the remainder in a non-GWTG hospital). Those hospitalized in a GWTG hospital were of similar age, race, sex, and risk factor profile as those in non-GWTG hospital (data not shown); however, fewer residents of the Stroke Belt were treated in a GWTG hospital (46.9% vs. 60.8%). Among the hospitals where participants were treated, the GWTG hospitals significantly larger (average 425 versus 289 beds) and were more likely to participate in GME resident training (59.9% versus 40.7%). After adjustment for these differences (see table), patients treated in GWTG hospitals were more likely to receive tPA (OR = 3.69), education on stroke risk factors and warning signs (OR = 1.52), swallowing evaluation (OR = 1.26), lipid profile evaluation (OR = 1.17), and evaluation by a neurologist (OR = 1.12). Conclusions: The care of stroke patients admitted to hospitals participating in the GWTG-Stroke were more likely to meet important stroke quality care metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→