Basic learning concepts in EBM: the bidimentional hierarchy of evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background and purpose</h3> Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and acute carotid stenting (ACS) of patients with acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusions (TO) of the anterior circulation was proven to be safe and effective, but the implications of periprocedural antithrombotic medications are only known to a limited extent. <h3>Methods</h3> We conducted a retrospective analysis of 162 consecutive patients who presented with TO and were treated with MT and ACS in our center. Patients initially either received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) or tirofiban periprocedurally. Some patients were also treated with unfractionated heparin. The frequency of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH), as well as the impact on clinical outcome and stent patency of different medical regimes, were evaluated using univariate tests and adjusted multivariate logistic regressions. <h3>Results</h3> Patients who received supportive treatment with heparin had significantly higher occurrences of any (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.28) and symptomatic ICH (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.18 to 14.95). Additionally, these patients were less likely to have a moderate clinical outcome after 90 days (modified Rankin scale 0–3; OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72), but were more likely to have a fatal outcome after 90 days (OR, 2.84; 95% CI 1.10 to 7.31). These findings persisted in patients who received both DAT and heparin, but not for patients who received both tirofiban and heparin. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Supportive administration of heparin in patients with TO and treatment with MT and ACS should be carefully considered, especially in patients who primarily receive DAT.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".