[Thrombolysis in apoplexy. How big is the target group and how many benefit?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: At present it is possible to dissolve cerebral blood clots with thrombolysis. This is a standard treatment in the USA and Canada for early onset ischaemic strokes within three hours of the stroke. Acceptance of thrombolysis is based on a single clinical trial. However, three other clinical trials have cast doubt on the benefit of the treatment and it has not yet been approved in Denmark and other countries. We sought to investigate the possible impact of thrombolysis in an unselected Danish stroke population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective study examined 502 unselected patients with acute stroke admitted over a period of eight months. The most important exclusion criteria from the North American trial with thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke were applied on the Danish cohort. The number of patients who might benefit from thrombolytic therapy was estimated from the North American trial, which reported a 32% relative increase in patients who would fully recover. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (8%) would be eligible for thrombolytic therapy. Thirteen patients (3%) would die, irrespective of treatment, and 11 patients (2%) would fully recover spontaneously. Three patients (0.6%) would benefit from thrombolytic therapy. In the ideal situation--all patients admitted in due time--11 patients (2.2%) would have benefited. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that few stroke patients would benefit from thrombolysis. The result is very well in line with the clinical experiences reported from the USA. Introduction of thrombolysis in Denmark to benefit the few would require extensive reorganisation of stroke care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
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".