Rapid outpatient transient ischemic attack clinic and stroke service activity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a multicenter time series analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim Rapid outpatient evaluation and treatment of TIA in structured clinics have been shown to reduce stroke recurrence. It is unclear whether short-term downtrends in TIA incidence and admissions have had enduring impact on TIA clinic activity. This study aims to measure the impact of the pandemic on hospitals with rapid TIA clinics. Methods Relevant services were identified by literature search and contacted. Three years of monthly data were requested – a baseline pre-COVID period (April 2018 to March 2020) and an intra-COVID period (April 2020 to March 2021). TIA presentations, ischemic stroke presentations, and reperfusion trends inclusive of IV thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) were recorded. Pandemic impact was measured with interrupted time series analysis, a segmented regression approach to test an effect of an intervention on a time-dependent outcome using a defined impact model. Results Six centers provided data for a total of 6,231 TIA and 13,191 ischemic stroke presentations from Australia (52.1%), Canada (35.0%), Italy (7.6%), and England (5.4%). TIA clinic volumes remained constant during the pandemic (2.9, 95% CI –1.8 to 7.6, p = 0.24), as did ischemic stroke (2.9, 95% CI –7.8 to 1.9, p = 0.25), IVT (−14.3, 95% CI −36.7, 6.1, p < 0.01), and EVT (0, 95% CI –16.9 to 16.9, p = 0.98) counts. Proportion of ischemic strokes requiring IVT decreased from 13.2 to 11.4% (p < 0.05), but those requiring EVT did not change (16.0 to 16.7%, p = 0.33). Conclusion This suggests that the pandemic has not had an enduring effect on TIA clinic or stroke service activity for these centers. Furthermore, the disproportionate decrease in IVT suggests that patients may be presenting outside the IVT window during the pandemic – delays in seeking treatment in this group could be the target for public health intervention.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".