MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396864223 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.046527

Twenty Years of Get With The Guidelines-Stroke: Celebrating Past Successes, Lessons Learned, and Future Challenges

2024· review· en· W4396864223 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew J. Reeves, Gregg C. Fonarow, Eric E. Smith, Kevin N. Sheth, Steven R. Messé, Lee H. Schwamm

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesGenentechAmerican Stroke AssociationAlexion PharmaceuticalsHCA HealthcarePfizerChiesi FarmaceuticiEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaDuke Clinical Research InstituteNovo NordiskSanofiAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Narrative reviewGerontologyMedical educationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Get With The Guidelines-Stroke program which, began 20 years ago, is one of the largest and most important nationally representative disease registries in the United States. Its importance to the stroke community can be gauged by its sustained growth and widespread dissemination of findings that demonstrate sustained increases in both the quality of care and patient outcomes over time. The objectives of this narrative review are to provide a brief history of Get With The Guidelines-Stroke, summarize its major successes and impact, and highlight lessons learned. Looking to the next 20 years, we discuss potential challenges and opportunities for the program.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207