Change in Hospital Risk-Standardized Stroke Mortality Performance With and Without the Passive Surveillance Stroke Severity Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjustment for baseline stroke severity is necessary for accurate assessment of hospital performance. We evaluated whether adjusting for the Passive Surveillance Stroke SeVerity (PaSSV) score, a measure of stroke severity derived using administrative data, changed hospital-specific estimated 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) after stroke. METHODS: We used linked administrative data to identify adults who were hospitalized with ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage across 157 hospitals in Ontario, Canada between 2014 and 2019. We fitted a random effects logistic regression model using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to estimate hospital-specific 30-day RSMR and 95% credible intervals with adjustment for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and stroke type. In a separate model, we additionally adjusted for stroke severity using PaSSV. Hospitals were defined as low-performing, average-performing, or high-performing depending on whether the RSMR and 95% credible interval were above, overlapping, or below the cohort's crude mortality rate. RESULTS: We identified 65,082 patients [48.0% were female, the median age (25th,75th percentiles) was 76 years (65,84), and 86.4% had an ischemic stroke]. The crude 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 14.1%. The inclusion of PaSSV in the model reclassified 18.5% (n=29) of the hospitals. Of the 143 hospitals initially classified as average-performing, after adjustment for PaSSV, 20 were reclassified as high-performing and 8 were reclassified as low-performing. Of the 4 hospitals initially classified as low-performing, 1 was reclassified as high-performing. All 10 hospitals initially classified as high-performing remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: PaSSV may be useful for risk-adjusting mortality when comparing hospital performance. External validation of our findings in other jurisdictions is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".