MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197213946 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000000826

Added Benefit of Stent Retriever Technology for Acute Ischemic Stroke

2015· article· en· W2197213946 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gustavo Saposnik, Gerald Lebovic, Andrew M. Demchuk, Elad I. Levy, Bruce Ovbiagele, Mayank Goyal, S. Claiborne Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeStentCardiologySurgeryIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment is increasingly being used in acute stroke care. However, although stent retrievers show improved flow restoration rates, their clinical benefits have been uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental effect of using stent retrievers compared with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV tPA; alteplase) alone or placebo/control. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 4 studies using stent retrievers (Solitaire), IV tPA, or placebo/control. We applied the ischemic stroke risk score (www.sorcan.ca/iscore) to each participant to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. We used a shift analysis to account for the potential benefits across the entire modified Rankin scale score at 90 days, adjusting for time-to-treatment, baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score, and ischemic stroke risk score. RESULTS: Of the 915 participants in this analysis, 312 (34.1%) patients received placebo, 312 (34.1%) received tPA alone, 131 (14.4%) received stent retrievers alone, and 160 (17.5) received combined therapy (IV tPA plus stent retrievers). The shift analysis revealed that more patients remained independent at 90 days if receiving stent retrievers alone (number needed to treat 3.5) or combined with tPA (number needed to treat 3.1) compared with tPA alone. After adjustment, participants receiving stent retrievers alone (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-5.89) or combined with tPA (odds ratio, 4.45; 95% confidence interval, 2.40-8.27) were more likely to be independent at 90 days compared with tPA alone. CONCLUSION: Patients with acute ischemic stroke who received IV tPA or revascularization therapies had a higher likelihood of achieving independence at 3 months. Stent retriever technology combined with tPA was associated with the greatest benefit compared with placebo, tPA alone, or endovascular therapy alone. ABBREVIATIONS: ASPECTS, the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score ESCAPE, The Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Proximal Occlusion Ischemic Stroke iScore, ischemic stroke risk score IV, intravenous MR CLEAN, Multicenter Randomized Clinical trial of Endovascular treatment for Acute ischemic stroke in the Netherlands mRS, modified Rankin scale NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale NINDS, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke sICH, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage STAR, the Solitaire Flow Restoration Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization SWIFT, Solitaire flow restoration device vs the Merci Retriever in patients with acute ischemic stroke tPA, tissue plasminogen activator (alteplase) WHO, World Health Organization

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207