The Acute Stroke System of Treatment Across Canada: Findings from a National Stroke Centre Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a devastating disease, but the disability due to stroke can be avoided or reduced through timely access to treatment and care. This study surveyed all designated stroke centres across Canada to better understand the national acute stroke treatment landscape. METHODS: An online survey designed to obtain information on each stroke hospital's designation level, most responsible physician for acute reperfusion treatment decision-making, availability of stroke coordinators, stroke research activity and level of transition to tenecteplase for intravenous thrombolysis was distributed to stroke centres in Canada via a network of stroke administrators and physician leads from each province. The survey responses were collated and audited for completeness and accuracy, and final responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and graphical distributions as appropriate. RESULTS: = 108, 52.7%). The presence of neurologists in the thrombolysis-capable centres is minimal, although compensated for by a high use of telestroke in making thrombolysis decisions. Participation rate in stroke clinical trials was heavily restricted to the EVT-capable centres. There were variabilities among provinces in the availability of stroke coordinators. CONCLUSION: The acute ischaemic stroke landscape in Canada is variable between provinces, presenting unique opportunities for collaboration. There is a need for greater availability of stroke neurologists and stroke coordinators and for diversifying site participation in clinical trials.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".