MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2914972024 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.wp244

Abstract WP244: Review Criteria For Transfer Elderly Patient From Community Hospital To Comprehensive Stroke Center

2017· article· en· W2914972024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pedro Cardona, Helena Quesada, Blanca Lara, Núria Cayuela, Paloma Mora, Moisès Garcés, Xavier Ustrell, Ester Catena, Elsa Puiggròs, Teresa Usabiaga Bernal, Lucía Aja, Francisco Rubio

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)OcclusionRadiological weaponAngiographySingle CenterCommunity hospitalRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recent guidelines recommend thrombectomy to treat stroke due to large vessel occlusions within first six hours after onset stroke time. There is no age limit, however elderly patients (>=80 years old) transferred from community hospital (CH) to comprehensive stroke center (CSC) possibly present different radiological findings in comparison with younger patients, that finally exclude them of endovascular treatment and could avoid unnecessary transfers to CSC. Method: We reviewed consecutive patients transferred from five CH to our CSC from January 2012 to July 2016. We analyzed radiological findings in ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scale) and segment of occluded artery in NonContrastCT (NCCT) and CT-angiography, both realized in CH (pre-transfer) and CSC. We evaluated the changes in NCCT between both centers related to onset stroke time, time of transfer, vascular occlusion segment and other epidemiological variables. Results: A total of 3825 patients were evaluated in our CSC as stroke code (24% elderly and increasing annually); 21% were transferred from CH to CSC with large vessel occlusion diagnosis and NIHSS>8. Subgroup of elderly patients presented worse score in ASPECTS-NCCT evaluated at CSC previous to endovascular treatment than younger patients (mean 6.8 vs 8.4;p: 0.001). An ASPECT score <8 in NCCT performed at CH pre-transfer was significant associated to important ASPECT score decay of respective NCCT performed at CSC for endovascular treatment assessment. This age-association was not demonstrated in younger patients. The occluded segments TICA and M1 were associated to lower ASPECTS. As a result less than 30% elderly patients transferred to CSC for thrombectomy were treated due to low ASPECT score in NCCT performed in CSC; confirmed by CT-perfusion. In ROC analysis we found a cut-off of 83 years for patients with good ASPECTS (dichotomized as ASPECTS>6) in NCCT at CSC (AUC: 0.69; S: 61%, E: 85%). Conclusions: Patients over 83 years old and low score in ASPECT (score<8) evaluated in CH presents low benefit when they are transferred to CSC in our area. Criteria to transfer elderly patient from CH to CSC for possible endovascular treatment must be reviewed according new guidelines to get efficient our Emergency Departments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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→