Thrombolysis in patients with prior stroke within the last 3 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with prior stroke within 3 months have been mostly excluded from randomized thrombolysis trials mainly because of the fear of an increased rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). The aim of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and clinical outcome of thrombolyzed patients who had a previous stroke within the last 3 months with those not fulfilling this criterion (comparison group). METHODS: In all, 1217 patients were included in our analysis (42.2% women, mean age 68.8 ± 14.4 years). RESULTS: Patients with previous stroke within the last 3 months (17/1.4%) had more often a basilar artery occlusion (41.2% vs. 10.8%) and less frequently a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score 0-1 prior to index stroke (88.2% vs. 97.3%) and a higher mean time lapse from symptom onset to thrombolysis (321 min vs. 262 min) than those in the comparison group. Stroke severity was not different between the two groups. Rates of sICH were 11.8% vs. 6%. None of the sICHs and only one asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in the region of the former infarct. At 3 months, favorable outcome (mRS ≤ 2) in patients with previous stroke within 3 months was 29.4% (vs. 48.9%) and mortality 41.2% (vs. 22.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prior stroke within the last 3 months, none of the sICHs and only one asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in the region of the former infarct. The high mortality was influenced by four patients, who died until discharge due to acute major index stroke. It is reasonable to include these patients in randomized clinical trials and registries to assess further their thrombolysis benefit-risk ratio.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".