Oral Sessions. Wednesday 27, May 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many countries have instigated public education campaigns to improve awareness of TIA and stroke and the need to seek medical attention immediately. In the UK, since 2004 there has been much media coverage of research on the high risk of major stroke after TIA or minor stroke and the Stroke Association launched a campaign to publicise the FAST test in 2006. However there are no published data on the impact of these developments on delays to presentation in people with TIA and minor stroke. Methods: We prospectively recorded delays to presentation of consecutive patients with incident or recurrent TIA or stroke in a population-based study in Oxfordshire, UK, from 1st April 2002, using multiple methods of case ascertainment (Oxford Vascular Study). Minor stroke was defined as NIHSS 5 at first assessment. Results: Of 1390 patients (638 TIA, 752 minor stroke), 299 (47%) with TIA and 346 (46%) with minor stroke sought medical attention within 3 hours and 427 (67%) with TIA and 556 (74%) with minor stroke sought attention within 24 hours. There was no significant reduction in delays to seeking medical attention over the seven year study period. Most patients first sought attention from primary care (TIA 77%, minor stroke 72%). Correct recognition of symptoms (31% of patients) was associated with less delay in TIA patients (2.33 vs 7.25 hours), as was age 60 yrs, presence of weakness or speech disturbance, and duration of event 60 minutes (all p<0.001). Delays were greater at the weekends than weekdays (25.13 vs 3.00 hours, p<0.001). Conclusions: Many patients with TIA or minor stroke delay seeking medical attention. Patients at higher predicted risk do present more quickly as do those who correctly recognise their symptoms, but public education in UK has had little impact so far on delays to calling for medical attention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".