MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodology of the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial

2008· article· en· W2158551075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pooja Khatri, Michael D. Hill, Yuko Y. Palesch, Judith Spilker, Edward C. Jauch, Janice Carrozzella, Andrew M. Demchuk, Renée H. Martin, Patrick D. Mauldin, Catherine Dillon, Karla J. Ryckborst, Scott Janis, Thomas A. Tomsick, Joseph P. Broderick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeGenentechMedical University of South Carolina
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Clinical trialRandomized controlled trialIschemic strokeInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: The Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) I and II pilot trials demonstrated that the combined intravenous (i.v.) and intraarterial (i.a.) approach to recanalization may be more effective than standard i.v. rt-PA (Activase) alone for moderate-to-large National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS>or=10) strokes, and with a similar safety profile. AIMS: The primary objective of this NIH-funded, Phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial is to determine whether a combined i.v./i.a. approach to recanalization is superior to standard i.v. rt-PA alone when initiated within 3 h of acute ischemic stroke onset. The IMS III trial will develop and maintain a network of interventional centers to test the safety, feasibility, and potential efficacy of new FDA-approved catheter devices as part of a combined i.v./i.a. approach to recanalization as the IMS III study progresses. A secondary objective of the IMS III trial is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the combined i.v./i.a. approach as compared with standard i.v. rt-PA. Trial enrollment began in July of 2006. DESIGN: A projected 900 subjects with moderate-to-large (NIHSS>or=10) ischemic strokes between ages 18 and 80 will be enrolled over the next 5 years at 40-plus centers in the United States and Canada. Patients must have i.v. treatment initiated within 3 h of stroke onset in both arms. Subjects will be randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio with more subjects enrolled in the combined i.v./i.a. group. The i.v. rt-PA alone group will receive the standard full dose [0.9 mg/kg, 90 mg maximum (10% as bolus)] of rt-PA intravenously over an hour. The combined i.v./i.a. group will receive a lower dose of i.v. rt-PA ( approximately 0.6 mg/kg, 60 mg maximum) over 40 min, followed by immediate angiography. If a treatable thrombus is not demonstrated, no i.a. therapy will be administered. If an appropriate thrombus is identified, treatment will continue with either the Concentric Merci thrombus-removal device, infusion of rt-PA and delivery of low-intensity ultrasound at the site of the occlusion via the EKOS Micro-Infusion Catheter, or infusion of rt-PA via a standard microcatheter. If i.a. rt-Pa therapy is the chosen strategy, a maximum of 22 mg of i.a. rt-PA may be given. The choice of i.a. strategy will be made by the treating neurointerventionalist. The i.a. treatment must begin within 5 h and be completed within 7 h of stroke onset. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure is a favorable clinical outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale Score of 0-2 at 3 months. The primary safety measure is mortality at 3 months and symptomatic ICH within the 24 h of randomization.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.011

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations260
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207