How to Improve the Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke by Modern Technologies, Artificial Intelligence, and New Treatment Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke remains one of the leading causes of death and disability in Europe. The European Stroke Action Plan (ESAP) defines four main targets for the years 2018 to 2030. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the use of innovative technologies and created pressure to improve internet networks. Moreover, 5G internet network will be helpful for the transfer and collecting of extremely big databases. Nowadays, the speed of internet connection is a limiting factor for robotic systems, which can be controlled and commanded potentially from various places in the world. Innovative technologies can be implemented for acute stroke patient management soon. Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are used increasingly often without the exception of medicine. Their implementation can be achieved in every level of stroke care. In this article, all steps of stroke health care processes are discussed in terms of how to improve them (including prehospital diagnosis, consultation, transfer of the patient, diagnosis, techniques of the treatment as well as rehabilitation and usage of AI). New ethical problems have also been discovered. Everything must be aligned to the concept of "time is brain".
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it