MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912740595 · doi:10.1097/hpc.0000000000000173

Improving Door-to-needle Times in the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke Across a Canadian Province: Methodology

2019· article· en· W2912740595 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noreen Kamal, Thomas Jeerakathil, Kelly Mrklas, Eric E. Smith, Balraj Mann, Shelley Valaire, Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Pathways in Cardiology A Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeEmergency medicineAcute strokeInternal medicineMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineIschemiaTissue plasminogen activator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alteplase is a proven medical treatment for acute ischemic stroke; however, the effectiveness of this treatment is highly time dependent. Therefore, it is imperative that hospitals treat acute ischemic stroke patients as quickly as possible. The measure, door-to-needle time, is the time from hospital arrival to when alteplase administration begins. OBJECTIVE: The goal in the Canadian province of Alberta was to reduce the door-to-needle time to a median of 30 minutes and to increase the percent of patients treated within 60 minutes to 90%. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY: A modified version of Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough Series Collaborative was used. All stroke centers self-enrolled into the collaborative after initial contact, and sites created interdisciplinary teams to participate in the Collaborative. Leadership and faculty were highly experienced in quality improvement and acute stroke. There were 3 daylong face-to-face learning sessions that were attended by enrolled teams, which included presentation about the evidence, site presentations to promote cross-site learning, and time to plan changes with their teams. The sites were also supported by site visits, webinars, and data feedback.

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: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Pathways in Cardiology A Journal of Evidence-Based MedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207