MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899136888 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111089

Understanding Risk for Better Stroke Prevention

2018· letter· en· W2899136888 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Saposnik

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Amarenco P, Lavallee PC, Monteiro Tavares L, et al . Five-year risk of stroke after TIA or minor ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med . 2018;378:2182–2190 “Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down ” . Ray Bradbury (1920-2012) Over the last three decades, we learnt about the value of risk stratification tools (eg, ABCD2, Oxford TIA, among others) that may help guide management decisions.1 However, limited information is available on the recurrence of cardiovascular events, stroke, death 5 years after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.2 The TIAregistry.org prospectively included patients with a recent TIA or minor stroke to evaluate the short-term (3 months and 1 year) and long-term (5 years) outcomes.3 The authors prospectively collected data on patients aged 18 years and older with a recent diagnosis of TIA or minor stroke (less than 7 days) from 21 …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0430.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.030

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207