Effect and prognosis of emergency nursing path in patients with acute stroke.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect and prognosis of the emergency nursing path in patients with acute stroke. METHODS: In this prospective study, 108 patients with acute stroke were randomly divided into an observation group (n=54, implementing the emergency nursing path) and a control group (n=54, implementing emergency routine care). We compared the rescue time-related indicators, neurological function, cognitive function and prognosis of the two groups. RESULTS: The time from admission to diagnosis and the time from diagnosis to specialist treatment in the observation group were shorter than those in the control group (all P<0.05). After two weeks of intervention, the score of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale in the two groups of patients were lower than before the intervention, and the observation group was even lower (all P<0.05). After one month of discharge, the score of Activity of Daily Living Scale decreased while the scores of Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-mental State Examination and Glasgow Outcome Scale increased in both groups, with more significant changes in the observation group (all P<0.05). The disability rate in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The implementation of emergency nursing could significantly shorten the time from admission to specialist treatment for patients with acute stroke. It could also promote the recovery of neurological and cognitive functions, which was conducive to the prognosis of patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".