DIFFERENCES IN STROKE CARE AND OUTCOMES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN CANADA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DIFFERENCES IN STROKE CARE AND OUTCOMES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN CANADA Authors: Thalia Field MD MHSc FRCPC, Noreen Kamal PhD, Patrice Lindsay PhDBackground:Stroke in women is understudied. We assessed sex differences in access to stroke treatment in Canada and stroke outcomes.Methods:We analyzed hospital administrative data from April 2009 to March 2016 using data from both the Canadian Institute for Health Informationu2019s Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) for inpatient care, the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) for emergency care, and National Rehabilitation Reporting System (NRS) rehabilitation data. Results:There were 257582 stroke patients during this 7-year period (49% female). Women were less likely to get tPA (13.7% vs. 14.2%)*, had longer door-to-needle times (average yearly median 103 min (SD 34) vs. 89 (35)*) and were more likely to die within 7 days of their event (8.5% vs. 7.9%)* Women also had worse dispositions, being discharged more often to long-term care (8.1% vs. 4.2%)* and being more likely to spending time with u201calternate level of careu201d status (24% vs. 21%)* Women were less likely to be discharged home from a rehabilitation facility (64% vs. 70%)*, and were less likely to be discharged home without supports (41% vs. 49%)*. [*p<0.00001]Conclusions:Women are less likely to receive timely acute treatment for their strokes and experience worse outcomes in hospital and at discharge. Further study is needed to better understand these systemic differences and determine strategies to optimize equitable care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 it