Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although recent trials of intervention for acute ischemic stroke have been positive, similar benefit in acute cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) remains largely unclear. This review aims to summarize the existing evidence regarding the management of CVT, including anticoagulation and endovascular therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: The mainstay of treatment in CVT is systemic anticoagulation even in the setting of intracerebral hemorrhage. Nonrandomized studies and case series suggest that endovascular therapy in CVT is relatively safe, and can improve outcomes in the small subset of CVT patients with neurologic deterioration despite anticoagulation. SUMMARY: Despite a generally favorable prognosis, one in four patients with CVT develop neurological deterioration in the acute phase. Predisposing factors include a neurological deficit or seizures at onset, deep venous thrombosis, venous infarctions, or intracranial hemorrhage with mass effect and an underlying thrombophilia. More randomized trials are needed to compare the benefits of anticoagulation and endovascular therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".