MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2898055882 · doi:10.1161/str.49.suppl_1.wp242

Abstract WP242: An International Survey of Progressive Stroke System Processes

2018· article· en· W2898055882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Ehrlich, Shreyansh Shah, Brad J. Kolls, Mayme L. Roettig, Carmelo Graffagnino

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStaffingStroke (engine)DemographicsAcute strokeMedical emergencyScale (ratio)Emergency medicineNursingEmergency departmentCartographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Understanding of high performing stroke systems can help development of regional stroke systems of care and bring meaningful system improvement. We sought to evaluate the current state of advanced systems worldwide to inform the development of a large-scale regional system of care improvement program. Methods: An 81 question, internet-based survey was developed to obtain information on current practices in large and progressive stroke systems. Data was collected from January 2017 - May 2017. Advanced stroke systems were identified by prior knowledge and colleague input. A total of 22 stroke centers from Europe and North America were invited to participate. The survey included questions encompassing center demographics, staffing, acute stroke code processes, Endovascular therapy (EVT) processes, EMS systems, stroke IT, telestroke use, transfer of patients, post-acute patient management and system feedback. Data analysis was conducted using REDCap internal analytic tools; simple counts and averages (mean) were calculated where appropriate. Results: Of the 22 invited centers, 9 (41%; 2 European, 1 Canadian, 6 US) completed the questionnaire, 7 of which were CSCs. Responding centers reported yearly average of 887 ischemic strokes (range 350-1444), and 202 (100-501) primary hemorrhagic strokes. Average annual IV tPA volume was 168 (60-440) and EVT volume was 68 (12-130). At all 9 systems, EMS agencies were trained in identifying potential strokes and reported utilizing an established prehosptial stroke scale. Six systems (66.7%) reported a destination protocol based on stroke severity involving bypass to an EVT-capable center. All 9 centers have developed processes for expedited transfer of stroke patients in need of neurointervention from their non-EVT-capable referral hospital network. For patients with confirmed large vessel occlusion being transferred to the hub hospital, 5 (55.6%) centers reported these patients bypass the ED to go directly to the neurointervention suite. Conclusions: This international survey of progressive stroke systems reveals useful practice patterns and processes that can be adopted by other stroke systems to improve patient care. This information will be integrated into the IMPROVE Stroke program.

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)0.011
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.287 · 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→