Variability of results of recent acute endovascular trials: a statistical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five recent trials have shown the benefit of endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation.1–5 There were a lot of commonalities between the trials. The key ones were: most patients had clinically severe ischemic stroke; most patients had small core based on imaging; all patients had neurovascular imaging to detect the presence of proximal vessel occlusion; most patients had an M1±intracranial internal carotid artery occlusion; a stent retriever was used for clot retrieval in the majority of patients.6–8 There were also commonalities in the results: all trials used the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days and used shift analysis (EXTEND-IA was a phase IIB study with reperfusion and/or NIH Stroke Scale at 24 h as the primary outcome; however this trial also reported mRS at 90 days as their secondary analysis); all trials showed a statistically significant benefit of endovascular treatment over the control arm. The complication rates (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage) of endovascular treatment were exceedingly low across all trials. There were, nonetheless, some differences between these trials. The key differences were: some trials had a lot of focus on speed and workflow (ESCAPE and SWIFT PRIME), some trials used CT perfusion for patient selection (EXTEND-IA and most of the patients …
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".