MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408987068 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.26.25324731

Disparities in Access to Vascular Stroke Imaging and Carotid Revascularization: A Population Study

2025· preprint· en· W4408987068 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harshil Shah, Tina He, Naomi Dyck, Jillian Stang, Dana Nicol, Stephen B. Wilton, Shelagh B. Coutts, Nishita Singh, Michael D. Hill, Aravind Ganesh

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)RevascularizationMedicineCardiologyInternal medicinePopulationCarotid arteriesEnvironmental healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background CT angiography (CTA), MR angiography (MRA), and ultrasound are noninvasive vascular imaging modalities used in the investigation of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Imaging decisions may be influenced by factors ranging from location-based resource considerations to patient characteristics. The aim of this study was to investigate disparities in vascular imaging utilization and subsequent carotid revascularization over 7 years in a Canadian province (Alberta, population:4.4 million). Methods We used provincial administrative data encompassing patients presenting to hospital or emergency/urgent-care facilities with a diagnosis of TIA or ischemic stroke from 1-April-2016 to 31-Mar-2023 and related the vascular imaging received (CTA/MRA/ultrasound/none) to age, sex, region (rural vs urban), diagnosis (ischemic stroke vs minor stroke/TIA), comorbidities, center type, and year using multivariable logistic regressions. We explored whether these variations persisted in recurrent events and investigated the odds of carotid endarterectomy/stenting using similar regression models. Results Among 47,963 patients (median age: 72, interquartile range: 21, 47.6% female) with TIA/stroke, those older than seventy-one, with minor stroke/TIA, and with specific comorbidities had significantly lower odds of receiving CTA or any neurovascular imaging, as were those in rural sites or hospitals not designated as Comprehensive Stroke Centers (CSCs, e.g. aOR-CTA [stroke unit-equivalent care vs CSC]: 0.20, 95%CI:0.13-0.30). Female patients were less likely to undergo CTA or any vascular imaging (66.4% female vs 71.1% male, aOR:0.84, 95%CI:0.81-0.88). Those presenting in more recent years had higher odds of receiving CTA (aOR-per-additional-year:1.15, 95%CI:1.14-1.17) or any neurovascular imaging (aOR:1.13, 95%CI:1.11-1.14). Female sex was associated with lower odds of carotid revascularization, as were patients with minor stroke/TIA, atrial fibrillation, care at non-CSC centers, and absence of vascular imaging (e.g. aOR[female vs male]:0.57, 95%CI:0.51-0.64). Conclusions We found important demographic and geographic disparities in vascular imaging utilization despite increasing utilization over time; similar disparities were also seen in carotid revascularization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→