MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2898024472 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.wmp92

Abstract WMP92: Quality of Care and Outcomes for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Admitted During the International Stroke Conference

2017· article· en· W2898024472 on OpenAlexaff
Steven R. Messé, Michael T. Mullen, Marguerrite Cox, Gregg C. Fonarow, Eric E. Smith, Jeffrey L. Saver, Mathew J. Reeves, Deepak L. Bhatt, Roland Matsouaka, Lee H. Schwamm

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)GuidelineEmergency medicineOdds ratioStaffingConfoundingPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients who present to the hospital during off-hours receive sub-optimal care and experience worse outcomes, often attributed to reduced staffing. It is unknown whether stroke patients receive less guideline-adherent care and experience worse outcomes when medical providers attend scientific meetings. The AHA International Stroke Conference (ISC) is the premier US conference for cerebrovascular disease and is well attended by stroke clinicians. Methods: The national Get With The Guidelines - Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) dataset was analyzed from 2009-2015 to identify acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients admitted during: 1) the week of ISC, and 2) the 2 weeks before and 2 weeks after ISC. We compared adherence to GWTG-Stroke quality measures and outcomes for AIS patients admitted during these two time periods using univariable and multivariable analysis, including both patient and hospital level variables. Results: Overall, 69,738 AIS patients were included, mean age 72, 52% female, and 29% non-white. There was no difference between the average weekly number of AIS cases admitted during ISC weeks versus non-ISC weeks (1,984 vs 1,997, p= 0.95). Patient and hospital characteristics were also similar between ISC vs. non-ISC time periods. No significant differences were noted in 14 quality of care metrics and 5 clinical outcomes between AIS patients treated during ISC vs. non-ISC weeks (Table). After adjusting for potential confounders, among patients who presented within 2 hours of onset there was no difference in the likelihood of receiving IV tPA within 3 hours (adjusted odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 - 1.03, p=0.13), nor in the likelihood of receiving IV tPA within 60 minutes of arrival (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.02, p=0.13). Conclusions: The treatment and outcome of patients who present with AIS to a GWTG-Stroke participating hospital are not degraded during the week of the International Stroke Conference.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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