MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592461968 · doi:10.1161/str.45.suppl_1.7

Abstract 7: Differential Effect of Baseline Cta Collateral Status on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Enrolled in the Ims-3 Trial

2014· article· en· W1592461968 on OpenAlexaff
Bijoy K. Menon, Emmad Qazi, Vivek Nambiar, Lydia D. Foster, Sharon D. Yeatts, David S. Liebeskind, Tudor G. Jovin, Michael D. Hill, Mayank Goyal, T A Tomsick, Joseph P. Broderick, Andrew M. Demchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCollateral circulationOcclusionClinical trialInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In the IMS 3 trial, we test the hypothesis that a differential effect of endovascular therapy on clinical outcome will be most apparent in patients with severely ischemic but salvageable brain tissue (moderate collaterals on baseline CTA). Methods: Data is from patients in the IMS 3 study. Of 656 patients in the study, 306 patients had baseline CTA and 204 patients had M1 MCA +/_ intracranial ICA occlusion where baseline collaterals could be measured. Collateral status was assessed by consensus using 3 different scores and categorized as good, intermediate and poor. Details of the IMS 3 study protocol are described in the primary paper. Results: Of 204 patients, 138 received endovascular therapy (85.7% recanalized, 44.2% achieved 90-day mRS 0-2) and 66 received IV tPA only (57.1% recanalized, 36.4% achieved 90-day mRS 0-2). Proportion of patients with 90-day mRS 0-2 in good, intermediate and poor collateral categories between endovascular therapy and IV tPA across the 3 scores were: score 1(good: 56.5% vs. 41.7%, intermediate: 45.2% vs. 22.2%, poor: 18.4% vs. 23.5%); score 2 (good: 57.4% vs. 42.3%, intermediate: 40% vs. 23.1%, poor: 5.3% vs. 14.3%); score 3 (good: 51.6% vs. 42.3%, intermediate: 43.3% vs. 23.5%, poor: 20.6% vs. 18.8%). Using the van-Elteren test, a significant shift in 90-day mRS distribution in favor of endovascular therapy was noted only for subjects with intermediate collaterals. (p=0.01 for scores 1 and 2, Figure 1) Clinical outcome was poor with no differential effect of therapy in patients with poor collaterals. Conclusion: Patients with baseline intermediate collaterals have the highest likelihood of showing better clinical response to endovascular therapy. Future clinical trials testing IV tPA vs. endovascular therapy may have a higher likelihood of showing differential treatment effect if patients with baseline poor collaterals are excluded.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207