Adherence to Guidelines at a Stroke Prevention Clinic: A Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2010, we published our stroke prevention clinic's performance as compared to Canadian stroke prevention guidelines. We now compare our clinic's adherence with guidelines to our previous results, following the implementation of an electronic documentation form. METHODS: All new patients referred to our clinic (McGill University Health Center) for recent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or ischemic stroke between 2014 and 2017 were included. We compared adherence to guidelines to our previous report (N=408 patients for period 2008-2010) regarding vascular risk management and treatment. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-two patients were included, of which 36% had a TIA and 64% had an ischemic stroke, with a mean age of 70 years and 43% female. Although the more recent cohort has shown a higher proportion of cardioembolic stroke compared to previous (19.1% vs. 14.7%) following new guidelines regarding prolonged cardiac monitoring, increased popularity in CT angiography has not translated into greater proportion of large-artery stroke subtype (26.3% vs. 26.2%). Blood pressure (BP) targets were achieved in 83% compared with 70% in our previous report (p<0.01). Attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target was also improved in our recent study (66% vs. 46%, p<0.01). No significant difference was found in the consistency of antithrombotic use (97.7% vs. 99.8%, p=0.08). However, there was a decline in smoking cessation (35% vs. 73%, p=0.02). Overall, optimal therapy status was better attained in the present cohort compared to the previous one (52% vs. 22%, p<0.01). The male sex was associated with better attainment of optimal therapy status (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.51). The number of follow-up visits and the length of follow-up were not associated with attainment of stroke prevention targets. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows improvement in attainment of therapeutic goals as recommended by Canadian stroke prevention guidelines, possibly attributed in part to the implementation of electronic medical recording in our clinic. Areas for improvement include smoking cessation counseling and diabetes screening.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".