OP47 Need For New Thrombectomy Centers? A Practical Decision Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Stroke is a major contributor to mortality, disability and long-term use of healthcare services. As for all chrono-dependant conditions, clinical results are associated with timely access to appropriate care. Thrombectomy (EVT) is an effective treatment for large vessel occlusions, but can only be provided in highly-specialized centers by experienced personnel. We sought to develop a framework to aid decision-making on the appropriateness of opening new EVT centers in Québec, Canada. Methods Data sources included provincial administrative healthcare databases, population density statistics, field evaluation of Québec's four existing EVT care networks, and literature review concerning structural and performance criteria for EVT centers. We consulted EVT clinical teams, interdisciplinary stroke experts, patients, professional association representatives, healthcare managers and decision-makers. Results Access to EVT is suboptimal in all 17 regions of Québec, with virtually no access in remote areas. Results of key performance indicators indicated favorable treatment delays after arrival at the EVT center. However, door-to-needle and door-in-door-out times were long for patients transferred from non-EVT centers. High use of ambulances indicated the potential to transport patients to the most appropriate center. In light of ‘real world’ results and other sources of information, the need for a new EVT center should consider the following criteria: sub-optimal EVT access within the region; transport time to an existing EVT center >1 hour; expected patient volume within 2 hours of transport; impact on volume of existing programs; availability of long-term financial support; availability of a critical mass of neurointerventionists, vascular neurologists, and neurosurgeons; demonstrated quality of stroke care; and, presence of a stroke unit. Conclusions The triangulation of literature, clinician experience and the Québec context enriched the evaluation process. Furthermore, this facilitated the development of a framework that was broadly applicable across regions to the real-world setting of decision-making in a complex system of care.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".