Cost evaluation of acute ischemic stroke in Latin America: a multicentric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current literature highlights a gap in precise stroke cost data for Latin America. This study measures the real costs associated with acute ischemic stroke care in Latin America using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC). The findings aim to lay a solid foundation for adopting value-based healthcare (VBHC) strategies in the region. Methods: The study is an observational, multicenter, international analysis of direct costs and outcomes for patients hospitalised with acute ischemic stroke from December 2021 to December 2022. Data from stroke centres in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay were analysed. Costs were stratified by country. Factors such as favourable outcomes based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS 0-2), clinical risk levels, and treatment interventions were considered for the analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models were utilised to assess the relationship of clinical variables with the total cost per patient. Findings: A total of 1106 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 74% received medical treatment alone, 18% received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), 4% underwent mechanical thrombectomy (MT), and 3% received combined IVT plus MT. The mean cost per patient was I$ 12,203 (SD I$ 15,055), with 49% achieving a favourable functional outcome. Compared to medical treatment alone, MT incurred costs 3.1 times higher, with an incremental cost of I$ 20,418 per patient (p < 0.0001). Across all countries, costs increased according to patients' clinical risk and treatment options, with length of hospital stay emerging as the primary cost driver. Interpretation: Our study highlights significant disparities in stroke costs across healthcare services in Latin America, influenced by variations in treatment accessibility, patient outcomes, and clinical risk profiles. These findings offer essential insights for shaping health policy decisions to enhance the long-term sustainability of stroke care in the region. Funding: The project received funding from the World Stroke Organization and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) IS 0135-0352.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".