Distribution of Diagnoses and Clinical and Imaging Characteristics in 1,322 Consecutive Suspected Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has become the standard of care for large-vessel occlusion strokes, but several barriers for implementing an optimal organization of stroke management remain. Major issues include the lack of reliable data on the percentage of stroke patients potentially eligible for EVT especially in times of expanding indications for EVT. Our aim was therefore to study the frequencies of possible EVT-eligible patients such as patients with medium-vessel occlusions, patients with low Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scores (ASPECTS), patients presenting in an extended time window after onset of symptoms, and patients with mild symptoms at presentation (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, NIHSS ≤ 5). We also give detailed imaging and clinical information about the patients presenting with intracranial hemorrhage and other ischemic stroke mimics stratified by symptoms at presentation. Methods: Cohort study of all consecutive patients with suspected acute stroke presenting to a tertiary care center in Germany between September 1, 2016, and August 31, 2017. Baseline and follow-up clinical and imaging characteristics were collected from patients' medical charts. Results: Of 1,322 patients with a suspected acute stroke, 592 (44.8%) had ischemic strokes, 221 (16.7%) had hemorrhagic strokes, 190 (10.9%) had transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), and 319 (24.1%) were classified as stroke mimics. Stroke severity was mild (NIHSS ≤ 5) in 866 (65.5%) patients; 15.7% of the patients with an occlusion of the anterior circulation had an ASPECTS ≤ 5, 17.4% of the patients with an ischemic stroke had distal vessel occlusions, and 49% of the patients presented later than 6 h after onset of symptoms. Conclusion: Our results help to plan resources in thrombectomy-capable centers in times of expanding indications for EVT where resources will have to be adjusted to patients with low-NIHSS, low-ASPECTS, and distal occlusions, and patients presenting in the extended time window, which may altogether account for an additional 20% of all ischemic stroke 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".