MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146007087 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.525618

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Stroke With the Alligator Retrieval Device

2009· article· en· W2146007087 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Shazam Hussain, Michael Kelly, S Moskowitz, Anthony J. Furlan, Raymond D Turner, Vivek Gonugunta, Peter A. Rasmussen, Thomas J. Masaryk, David Fiorella

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAlligatorThrombusStroke (engine)SurgerySolitaire Cryptographic AlgorithmIschemic strokeCardiologyIschemiaModified Rankin Scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recanalization of occluded vessels in acute ischemic stroke is associated with improved outcome. Devices that can quickly and safely remove thrombus and promote recanalization are useful in the management of these patients. The Alligator retrieval device, developed for endovascular foreign body retrieval, may also be useful for thrombus removal. METHODS: Seven patients with acute ischemic stroke (aged 31 to 88 years) who underwent intra-arterial therapy with the Alligator retrieval device at our center are presented. RESULTS: The Alligator retrieval device was able to retrieve the thrombus in 5 of 7 cases with good to excellent recanalization seen and was unsuccessful in 2 of 7 patients. Complete recanalization was obtained in one of 7 patients and near complete recanalization obtained in 4 of 7 patients. Three of the 7 patients had good outcome at 3 months and 3 of 7 patients died within 30 days of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The Alligator retrieval device was successfully able to remove thrombus in the majority of cases. It appears to have increased success in proximal occlusions in relatively straight segments. In properly selected cases, it may be a useful device in intra-arterial stroke management.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207