Outcomes Are Not Different between Patients with Intermediate and High DWI-ASPECTS after Stent-Retriever Embolectomy for Acute Anterior Circulation Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Questions remain as to what benefits embolectomy provides to patients presented with considerable early ischemic changes on baseline imaging studies. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score applied to DWI on treatment outcomes in patients with acute stroke undergoing stent-retriever embolectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and DWI data from 171 patients with acute anterior circulation stroke who were treated with stent-retriever embolectomy within 6 hours of symptom onset. DWI-ASPECTS scores were analyzed with the full scale or were dichotomized (4-6 versus 7-10). Patients with DWI-ASPECTS ≤3 were excluded from the study. Associations between outcome and clinical and radiologic factors were determined with a multivariate logistic regression analysis. A good outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 3 months. RESULTS: The median DWI-ASPECTS was 7 (interquartile range, 6-8). The rates of good outcome, symptomatic hemorrhage, and mortality were not different between high DWI-ASPECTS (scores of 7-10) and intermediate DWI-ASPECTS (scores of 4-6) groups. In patients with an intermediate DWI-ASPECTS, good outcome was achieved in 46.5% (20/43) of patients with successful revascularization, whereas no patients without successful revascularization had a good outcome (P = .016). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of good outcome were age and successful revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that there were no differences in outcomes between patients with a high DWI-ASPECTS and those with an intermediate DWI-ASPECTS who underwent stent-retriever embolectomy for acute anterior circulation stroke. Thus, patients with an intermediate DWI-ASPECTS otherwise eligible for endovascular therapy may not be excluded from stent-retriever embolectomy or stroke trials.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".