MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107905972 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000890

Maintaining high thrombectomy rates during pandemics

2020· review· en· W3107905972 on OpenAlexaff
Tomas Dobrocky, Johannes Kaesmacher, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Jan Gralla, Urs Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial distancePandemicMedicineHealth careIntensive care medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Personal protective equipmentDiseaseStroke (engine)Transmission (telecommunications)Medical emergencyBusinessEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to review the current literature on endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke in the aftermath of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown. RECENT FINDINGS: The outbreak of the COVID-19 has had effect of unprecedented magnitude on the social, economic and personal aspects around the globe. Healthcare providers were forced to expand capacity to provide care to the surging number of symptomatic COVID-19 patients, while maintaining a fully operating service for all non-COVID patients. The recent literature suggesting an overall decrease in acute ischemic stroke admissions as well as total number of endovascular treatments will be reviewed. Although the underlying reasons therefore remain the matter of debate, it seems that the imposed restrictions, requiring social distancing, and stopping all nonessential services, have led to a higher threshold for patients to seek medical attention, in particular in those with less severe symptoms. Thus, raising public awareness on the importance of strokes and transient ischemic attacks is even more important in the light of the current situation to avoid serious healthcare, economic consequences, and limit long term morbidity. SUMMARY: The priority remains maintaining a fast and efficient pre and in-hospital work-flow while mitigating nosocomial transmission and protecting the patient and the healthcare workers with appropriate personal protective equipment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207