Acute Stroke Patients Treated with Stent Retrievers in Carotid “T” Occlusions Have Improved Recanalization and Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recanalization rates and patient outcomes in acute occlusion of the carotid terminus have previously been poor. The use of stent-retrievers has resulted in better recanalization and patient outcomes. We sought to compare outcomes in patients treated with stent-retrievers to outcomes in older techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively compared a stent-retriever cohort to a historical cohort. We evaluated recanalization rates and good outcomes (defined as mRS < 2 at 30 days or 10 point drop in NIHSS). RESULTS: There were twenty patients treated with stent-retrievers versus nine without. The recanalization rate in patients treated with stent retrievers was significantly higher than that of other modalities (90% vs 33%, p=0.004). Good outcomes were significantly higher in the stent retriever cohort (70% vs 22%, p=0.041). CONCLUSION: The use of stent-retrievers in patients with carotid "T" occlusions shows promise in comparison to older techniques. A randomized trial comparing stent-retriever therapy to IV thrombolysis is warranted to determine the efficacy of this new generation of devices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".