International Comparison of Patient Characteristics and Quality of Care for Ischemic Stroke: Analysis of the China National Stroke Registry and the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines––Stroke Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Adherence to evidence-based guidelines is an important quality indicator; yet, there is lack of assessment of adherence to performance measures in acute ischemic stroke for most world regions. Methods and Results We analyzed 19 604 patients with acute ischemic stroke in the China National Stroke Registry and 194 876 patients in the Get With The Guidelines--Stroke registry in the United States from June 2012 to January 2013. Compared with their US counterparts, Chinese patients were younger, had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, and had similar median, lower mean, and less variability in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (median 4 [25th percentile-75th percentile, 2-7], mean 5.4±5.6 versus median 4 [1-10], mean 6.8±7.7). Chinese patients were more likely to experience delays from last known well to hospital arrival (median 1318 [330-3209] versus 644 [142-2055] minutes), less likely to receive thrombolytic therapy (2.5% versus 8.1%), and more likely to experience treatment delays (door-to-needle time median 95 [72-112] versus 62 [49-85] minutes). Adherence to early and discharge antithrombotics, smoking cessation counseling, and dysphagia screening were relatively high (eg >80%) in both countries. Large gaps existed between China and the United States with regard to the administration of thrombolytics within 3 hours (18.3% versus 83.6%), door-to-needle time ≤60 minutes (14.6% versus 48.0%), deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (65.0% versus 97.8%), anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (21.0% versus 94.4%), lipid treatment (66.3% versus 95.8%), and rehabilitation assessment (58.8% versus 97.4%). Conclusions We found significant differences in clinical characteristics and gaps in adherence for certain performance measures between China and the United States. Additional efforts are needed for continued improvements in acute stroke care and secondary prevention in both nations, especially China.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".