MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244936570 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2019.137

P.037 Keeping track of time: emphasizing symptom onset-to-hospital time in stroke care

2019· article· en· W4244936570 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
DE Freedman, N Behih, A Elmeligi, Demetrios J. Sahlas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArrival timeMedical emergencyStroke (engine)Fast trackHealth careEmergency medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations target a median door-to-needle time of 30 minutes. However, brain tissue becomes damaged with any delay from symptom onset. Efficiencies may be gained prior to hospital arrival, by evaluating the timeliness of patient access to hospital from symptom onset, as well as by improving healthcare provider communication, prior to arrival of the patient. Methods: We engaged with hospital administration, paramedic services, allied health colleagues, physicians, and engineers, to develop Kairos, a secure online platform that healthcare providers can utilize to track progress en route to hospital, as well as to share pertinent stroke patient information, prior to arrival. Results: Kairos is built on React Native, allowing users to access it on android or iOS devices. Paramedics select patient identification, symptom onset time, and associated symptoms. The receiving hospital can add doctors to the patient’s thread, and the stroke team can prepare for patient arrival. Conclusions: We plan to measure the median symptom onset-to-hospital time in patients with strokes, and monitor the change in door-to-needle time following implementation at an Ontario Regional Stroke Centre.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.004

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→