MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116912975 · doi:10.1056/evidoa2500217

A Randomized Trial of Telemedicine Models of Care on a Mobile Stroke Unit

2025· article· en· W7116912975 on OpenAlexaff
Vignan Yogendrakumar, Anna H. Balabanski, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Chloe A. Mutimer, James L. Barker, N. Parsons, Soo Jeong Shin, James Beharry, Louise Weir, Nawaf Yassi, Henry Zhao, Alex Warwick, Skye Coote, Francesca Langenberg, Leigh Branagan, Waseem Siddiqi, Grant Hocking, Felix Ng, Lauren M. Sanders, P. Choi, Tissa H Wijeratne, Douglas E. Crompton, H. Ma, Geoffrey Cloud, Bcv Campbell, G. B. Donnan, S. M. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueNEJM Evidence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Unit (ring theory)Outcome (game theory)MEDLINEPrimary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile stroke units (MSUs) accelerate prehospital acute stroke care and improve outcomes. Both onboard and telemedicine neurologist models of care are used but have not been directly compared. METHODS: MSU-TELEMED was a randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial comparing onboard neurologist care to a telemedicine care model for people presenting to an MSU with suspected stroke. MSU care was prospectively randomized by day to onboard versus telemedicine care. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite outcome using a win-odds approach that prioritized: (1) safety, (2) scene-to-treatment-decision time, and (3) percentage of the total case time the neurologist spent in direct care (higher values denote better resource use). Every participant in each group was compared to those in the other, resulting in a "win/tie/loss" distribution for telemedicine compared to onboard. RESULTS: A total of 275 participants were assigned to telemedicine (n=135) or onboard (n=140) neurologist care groups. The primary outcome of win/tie/loss distribution favored the telemedicine model (76%/4%/20%) with an adjusted win odds of 3.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-5.1). Safety events were similar (13% telemedicine vs. 12% onboard, risk ratio 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.8). Median scene-to-treatment-decision time was 19 minutes in the telemedicine group and 13 minutes in the onboard group (adjusted difference in median time 4 minutes; 95% CI, 1.9-5.9). The median percentage of the neurologist's time directly involved in patient care was 100% in the telemedicine group and 33% in the onboard group (adjusted difference in median percentage 63 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-74). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to an onboard model, an MSU telemedicine model of care was superior based on a composite hierarchical outcome of safety, scene-to-treatment-decision time, and percentage of the neurologist's time spent in direct care. (Funded by the Sylvia and Charles Viertel Charitable Foundation and the Medical Research Future Fund "Golden Hour"; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05991310.).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEJM EvidenceSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207