Thrombolytic therapy for ischaemic stroke in patients using warfarin: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether thrombolytic therapy is safe in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who are treated with warfarin and have a subtherapeutic international normalised ratio (INR) at stroke onset. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of the literature and included studies that assessed the relation between prior warfarin use with subtherapeutic INR and outcome after intravenous or intra-arterial thrombolytic therapy in acute ischaemic stroke. Outcome measures were symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH), modified Rankin scale score 0-2 and mortality. Second, the authors performed a meta-analysis of the included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies with 3631 patients were included. 240 (6.6%) patients used warfarin before stroke onset. The risk of SICH was increased in the warfarin group (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 5.9. p=0.02). There was no significant difference, however, in functional outcome (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2, p=0.32) or death from all causes (OR 1.2; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.8). DISCUSSION: The risk of SICH after thrombolytic therapy is increased in patients using warfarin with subtherapeutic INR levels. The authors found no evidence of an increase in death from all causes or worsening of functional outcome in warfarin treated patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".