Thrombolysis in Ischemic Strokes with no Arterial Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Twelve million people develop ischemic stroke each year world over and 30-40% of them do not have arterial occlusions at presentation. Trials conducted to study the efficacy of thrombolytic drug reported better outcome with use of thrombolytic drug but none studied the subtypes of ischemic strokes specifically and adequately. The subgroups of patients with no arterial occlusion at presentation continue to receive thrombolytic therapy without proven benefit and with some risk. AIM: The aim of this article is to study whether intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase improves clinical outcome in ischemic stroke patients who do not have arterial occlusion at presentation. DESIGN: A retrospective medical record-based observational multicenter, multinational study. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome measure would be clinical outcome at three-months from stroke onset measured by modified Rankin Scale and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale. Secondary outcome measure will be frequency of intracerebral hemorrhage causing worsening of clinical deficit defined as increase in National Institute of Health Stroke Scale by >4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".