MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1589770258 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.183

Abstract 183: Use, Safety and Outcomes with Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke among Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women

2015· article· en· W1589770258 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Leffert, Caitlin Clancy, Brian T. Bateman, Margueritte Cox, Phillip J. Schulte, Eric E. Smith, Gregg C. Fonarow, Elena V. Kuklina, Mary G. George, Lee H. Schwamm

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisPregnancyStroke (engine)ObstetricsComplicationPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pregnancy and recent cesarean delivery are thought to pose unacceptable complication risks from IV thrombolysis (tPA), and most pregnant or recently postpartum women with ischemic stroke (IS) do not receive IV tPA. We sought to determine the frequency of IV tPA use and short term outcomes among pregnant vs. non-pregnant women with IS in the Get With the Guidelines Stroke Registry. Methods: Pregnant or recently postpartum (<6 weeks) (n=15) and non-pregnant patients (n=1913) aged 18-44 with IS who were treated with IV tPA (and without intra-arterial therapy) were identified based on medical history or ICD-9 codes from 2008-2013. Patient and hospital categorical variables were compared by Chi-square and continuous variables by Wilcoxon Rank-Sum. Results: Pregnant patients were less likely to receive IV tPA than non-pregnant patients (15/338 (4.4%) vs. 1913/24303 (7.9%), p = 0.03). The primary reasons documented for non-treatment in the 0-3 hour timeframe were pregnancy itself (58% vs. 0%) and recent surgery (47% vs. 12%). Other less commonly noted reasons were stroke symptoms too mild (16% vs. 31%) or rapid improvement (13% vs. 32%). There were no differences in major complications between groups (Table). Discharge outcomes between groups were comparable, with low rates of in-hospital mortality (0-2%) and high rates of home discharge (60-72%). Only the proportion with length of stay > 4 days differed, and was more frequent among pregnant patients (Table). Conclusions: Pregnant patients with IS undergo IV thrombolysis infrequently; less often than non-pregnant patients of childbearing age. Despite the rare use, the short term outcomes and complication rates in these pregnant patients generally appear to be favorable and similar to non-pregnant women. As the data are underpowered to show true differences between the groups, larger studies are warranted to study the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis in pregnancy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→