MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235156062 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2019.135

P.035 Impact of a telestroke system on acute ischemic stroke patient outcomes and thrombolysis rates

2019· article· en· W4235156062 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rasmussen Sl, Donaldo D. Canales, D Blacquiere

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)Emergency medicineMortality rateTelemedicineIschemic strokeMedical emergencyInternal medicineHealth careIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Telestroke can improve ischemic stroke patient outcomes by improving access to physicians specialized in stroke care and increasing the rate of thrombolysis. The aim of this study to assess the effect of the newly implemented Telestroke service on ischemic stroke patient outcomes in New Brunswick, Canada, a province with a high rural population. Methods: By means of a retrospective chart review, data for 366 adult acute ischemic stroke patients (Telestroke = 15.3%; non-Telestroke = 84.7%) were collected from emergency departmentsspanning five sites in the province. Outcomes included home discharge rates, complications (i.e., hemorrhage,angioedema), mortality, rate of thrombolysis and time to treatment. Results: No significant differences emerged for home discharge rates, complications, mortality or door-to-needle time. Telestroke patients had a significantly greater rate of thrombolysis treatment (51.8% vs 6.1%) and significantly less door-to-CT time (M= 27.63 min vs M= 100.78 min) compared to the non-Telestroke group. Conclusions: Overall, both groups had similar outcomes with some trends toward improvements for patients utilizing Telestroke.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→