MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321461813 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs20221612860

Study of Stress Hyperglycemia as a Prognostic Factor in Acute Ischemic Stroke at a Tertiary Care Hospital

2022· article· en· W4321461813 on OpenAlexaff
Waqar Zafar, Muneeba Malik, Meenal Aftab, Ahad Kareem Khan, Asad Munir

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStress hyperglycemiaStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeInternal medicineEmergency medicineIschemiaInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The second most prevalent cause of disability and death worldwide, stroke is silently taking on the characteristics of an epidemic. Almost 85% of the all strokes are ischemic strokes. Objective: To assess the stress hyperglycemia as a prognostic factor in acute ischemic stroke at a tertiary care hospital. Design of the Study: It was a case control study. Place and Duration of Study: This study was conducted at the Department of medicine & Allied Services Hospital Lahore from March 2022 August 2022. Patients and Methods: Total 100 patients with Computerized Tomography (CT) Brain evidence of acute ischemic stroke who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. At admission, a thorough history was taken and clinical examination was performed. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS scale) was used to measure the patient’s neurological state. Fasting Blood sugar (FBS) and Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HBA1c) were performed. Patients' functional recovery was measured by comparing their NIHSS scores on the day of admission and after 7 days in the hospital. Results of the Study: Most of the patients enrolled in our study had age of 61 to 70 years. In study sample 56% of patients were male and 44% were female. Out of 100 patients 56 had stress hyperglycemia and 44 were without stress hyperglycemia. Functional recovery was greater in patients with normoglycemia than in patients with stress hyperglycemia (based on differences in NIHSS score on day one and day seven). The mortality was observed to be 9.2% in patients who had stress hyperglycemia. The mean NIHSS scores was 3.45±1.64 in patients with stress hyperglycemia and 4.50 ± 1.05 was in participants with normoglycemia. Practical Implication: The present study was carried out to know whether stress hyperglycemia can be a prognostic marker in patients of acute ischemic stroke. Conclusion: When compared to patients with stress hyperglycemia, functional recovery was better in patients with normoglycemia. This study demonstrates that patients with normoglycemia had greater functional recovery as compared to patients with stress hyperglycemia, as measured by the difference between the NIHSS scores. As a result, patients with normoglycemia had better outcomes than those with stress hyperglycemia. Keywords: Stress hyperglycemia, Normoglycemia, Acute Ischemic Stroke, Prognostic Factor, NIHSS

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→