Poststroke Care Pathways and Spasticity Treatment: A Retrospective Study in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding care pathways for stroke survivors who do and do not receive poststroke spasticity (PSS) treatment. METHODS: Administrative data was used to identify adults who experienced a stroke and sought acute care between 2012 and 2017 in Alberta, Canada. Pathways of stroke care within the health care system were determined among those who initiated PSS treatment (PSS treatment group: outpatient pharmacy dispensation of an anti-spastic medication, focal chemo-denervation injection, or a spasticity tertiary clinic visit) and those who did not (non-PSS treatment group). Time from the stroke event until spasticity treatment initiation, and setting where treatment was initiated were reported. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: = 22,922) treatment groups encountered were the emergency department (86 and 84%), acute inpatient care (80 and 69%), inpatient rehabilitation (40 and 12%), and long-term care (19 and 13%), respectively. PSS treatment was initiated a median of 291 (interquartile range 625) days after the stroke event, and most often in the community when patients were residing at home (45%), followed by "other" settings (22%), inpatient rehabilitation (18%), long-term care (11%), and acute inpatient care (4%). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first population based cohort study describing pathways of care among adults with stroke who subsequently did or did not initiate spasticity treatment. Areas for improvement in care may include strategies for earlier identification and treatment of PSS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".