MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3204063718 · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.21264529

Changes in ischemic stroke presentations and associated workflow during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A population study in Alberta, Canada

2021· preprint· en· W3204063718 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aravind Ganesh, Jillian Stang, Finlay A. McAlister, Oleksandr Shlakhter, Jessalyn K. Holodinsky, Balraj Mann, Michael D. Hill, Eric E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteFoothills Medical CentreAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePandemicThrombolysisStroke (engine)PopulationEmergency medicineIncidence (geometry)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineMyocardial infarctionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Pandemics may promote hospital avoidance among patients with emergencies, and added precautions may exacerbate treatment delays. There is a paucity of population-based data on these phenomena for stroke. We examined the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation and treatment of ischemic stroke in an entire population. Methods We used linked provincial administrative data and data from the Quality Improvement and Clinical Research Alberta Stroke Program – a registry capturing stroke-related data on the entire population of Alberta(4.3 million)– to identify all patients presenting with stroke in the pre-pandemic(1-January-2016 to 27-February-2020, n=19,531) and pandemic(28-February-2020 to 30-August-2020, n=2,255) periods. We examined changes in thrombolysis and endovascular therapy(EVT) rates, workflow, and in-hospital outcomes. Results Hospitalizations/presentations for ischemic stroke dropped (weekly adjusted-incidence-rate-ratio[aIRR]:0.48, 95%CI:0.46-0.50, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, pre-admission care needs), as did population-level incidence of thrombolysis(aIRR:0.49,0.44-0.56) or EVT(aIRR:0.59,0.49-0.69). However, the proportions of presenting patients receiving acute therapies did not decline (e.g. thrombolysis:11.7% pre-pandemic vs 13.1% during-pandemic, aOR:1.02,0.75-1.38). Onset-to-door times were prolonged; EVT recipients experienced longer door-to-reperfusion times (median door-to-reperfusion:110-minutes, IQR:77-156 pre-pandemic vs 132.5-minutes, 99-179 during-pandemic; adjusted-coefficient:18.7-minutes, 95%CI:1.45-36.0). Hospitalizations were shorter but stroke severity and in-hospital mortality did not differ. Interpretation The first COVID-19 wave was associated with a halving of presentations and acute therapy utilization for ischemic stroke at a population level, and greater pre-hospital and in-hospital treatment delays. Our data can inform public health messaging and stroke care in current and future waves. Messaging should encourage attendance for emergencies and stroke systems should re-examine “code stroke” protocols to mitigate inefficiencies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→