Association Between Immigration Status and Acute Stroke Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— Immigrants to high-income countries have a lower incidence of stroke compared with long-term residents; however, little is known about the care and outcomes of stroke in immigrants. Methods— We used linked clinical and administrative data to conduct a retrospective cohort study of adults seen in the emergency department or hospitalized with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack between July 1, 2003, and April 1, 2013, and included in the provincial stroke registry. We ascertained immigration status using immigration records and compared processes of stroke care delivery between immigrants (defined as those immigrating after 1985) and long-term residents. In the subgroup with ischemic stroke, we calculated inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW)–adjusted risk ratios for disability on discharge (modified Rankin Scale score of 3 to 5), accounting for demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions to compare outcomes between immigrants and long-term residents. Results— We included 34 987 patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, of whom 2649 (7.6%) were immigrants. Immigrants were younger than long-term residents at the time of stroke/transient ischemic attack (median age 67 years versus 76 years; P <0.001). In the subgroup with ischemic stroke, there were no differences in stroke care delivery, except that a higher proportion of immigrants received thrombolysis than long-term residents (21.2% versus 15.5%; P <0.001). Immigrants with ischemic stroke had a higher adjusted risk of being disabled on discharge (adjusted risk ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13–1.22) compared to long-term residents. Conclusions— Stroke care is similar in Canadian immigrants and long-term residents. Future research is needed to confirm the observed association between immigration status and disability after stroke and to identify factors underlying the association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".