Current Status of Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data regarding thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in Asia are scarce and only a small percentage of patients are thrombolysed. The dose of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) in Asia remains controversial. Case-controlled observation studies in Asia included only Japanese patients and suggested the clinical efficacy and safety of low-dose IV-tPA (0.6 mg/kg body weight; max 60 mg) comparable to standard dose (0.9 mg/kg body weight; max. 90 mg). Reduced treatment cost, lower symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage risk and comparable efficacy encouraged many Asian centers to adopt low-dose or even variable-dose IV-tPA regimens. We evaluated various Asian thrombolysis studies and compared with SITS-MOST registry and NINDS trial. METHODS: We included the published studies on acute ischemic stroke thrombolysis in Asia. Unadjusted relative risks and 95% Confidence intervals were calculated for each study. Pooled estimates from random effects models were used because the tests for heterogeneity were significant. RESULTS: We found only 18 publications regarding acute ischemic stroke thrombolysis in Asia that included total of 9300 patients. Owing to ethnic differences, stroke severity, small number of cases in individual reports, outcome measures and tPA dose regimes, it is difficult to compare these studies. Functional outcomes were almost similar (to Japanese studies) when lower-dose IV-tPA was used in non-Japanese populations across Asia. Interestingly, with standard dose IV-tPA, considerably better functional outcomes were observed, without increasing symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage rates. CONCLUSIONS: Variable dose regimens of IV-tPA are used across Asia without any reliable or established evidence. Establishing a uniform IV-tPA regimen is essential since the rapid improvements in health-care facilities and public awareness are expected to increase the rates of thrombolysis in Asia.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".