The role of gaze-face-arm-speech-time score in evaluating prognosis of intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To evaluate the predictive value of gaze-face-arm-speech-time (G-FAST) score, a simple and rapid scoring tool, for the prognosis of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods The clinical data of 386 patients with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous thrombolytic therapy in 4.5 hours in the Department of Neurology of Beijing Shijitan Hospital from May 2010 to April 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 126 cases completed CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography before intravenous thrombolysis. According to the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 90 days after treatment, those with the mRS score ≤ 2 were regarded as good prognosis group (74 cases), and those with the mRS score ≥ 3 as poor prognosis group (52 cases). The baseline clinical data of the two groups were analyzed, including age, sex, previous history, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, G-FAST score, Alberta Stroke Early CT Score (ASPECTS), anterior circulating large artery occlusion (LAVO), etc. And further multifactor Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the influencing factors of poor prognosis. Results The rate of good prognosis of these patients was 58.7% (74/126). The age ((61.72±11.98) years vs (69.53±11.58) years, t=-3.317, P=0.001), history of atrial fibrillation (18.9%(14/74) vs 36.5%(19/52), χ2=4.905, P=0.027), thrombolytic time window ((145.19±43.44) min vs (164.26±40.07) min, t=-2.19, P=0.031), baseline NIHSS score (9.65±5.33 vs 12.83±6.25, t=-2.760, P=0.007), pre thrombolytic G-FAST score (2.46±1.00 vs 3.02±0.79, t=-3.068, P=0.003), ASPECTS (8.06±1.29 vs 6.89±1.91, t=3.613, P=0.000) and LAVO (39.2%(29/74) vs 67.3%(35/52), χ2=9.661, P=0.002) showed statistically significant differences between the good and the poor prognosis groups. Multiple factor Logistic regression analysis showed that the age (OR=1.609, 95%CI 1.067-2.001, P=0.026), history of atrial fibrillation (OR=1.302, 95%CI 1.157-1.658, P=0.002), LAVO (OR=6.416, 95%CI 3.302-12.84, P=0.000), longer thrombolytic time window (OR=6.756, 95%CI 2.035-9.754, P=0.001), lower ASPECTS (OR=1.452, 95%CI 1.035-2.279, P=0.002), higher baseline NIHSS score (OR=1.309, 95%CI 1.083-1.542, P=0.033) and G-FAST score (OR=1.583, 95%CI 1.432-1.855, P=0.000) were independent risk factors for the poor prognosis of acute ischemic stroke. The age ((67.89±17.28) years vs (62.24±12.54) years, t=2.317, P=0.024), history of atrial fibrillation (34.3%(24/70) vs 16.1%(9/56), χ2=5.339, P=0.021), baseline NIHSS score (11.68±5.68 vs 9.02±4.36, t=2.150, P=0.034), ASPECTS (7.06±2.08 vs 8.77±1.85, t=-1.613, P=0.042) and LAVO (68.6%(48/70) vs 28.6%(16/56), χ2=19.916, P=0.000) showed statistically significant difference between the G-FAST score ≥ 3 group and the G-FAST score ≤ 2 group by further analysis. And the good prognosis of 90 days was lower in the G-FAST score ≥ 3 group (51.4% (36/70)) than in the G-FAST score ≤ 2 group (67.9% (38/56), χ2=4.953, P=0.026). Conclusions High G-FAST score is an independent risk factor for thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke. The high score of G-FAST may suggest the incidence of LAVO, the obvious changes in early cerebral ischemia, and the poor prognosis of 90 days. Patients in this group may consider bridging endovascular treatment as early as possible. Key words: Stroke; Thrombolytic therapy; Prognosis; G-FAST score; Arterial occlusive diseases
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle