Heads Up! A Novel Provocative Maneuver to Guide Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A common dilemma in acute ischemic stroke management is whether to pursue recanalization therapy in patients with large vessel occlusions but minimal neurologic deficits. We describe and report preliminary experience with a provocative maneuver, i.e. 90-degree elevation of the head of bed for 30 min, which stresses collaterals and facilitates decision-making. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of <7.5 h of acute anterior circulation territory ischemia patients with minimal deficits despite middle cerebral artery (MCA) or internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusive disease. RESULTS: Five patients met the study entry criteria. Their mean age was 78.4 years (range 65-93). All presented with substantial deficits (median NIHSS score 11, range 5-22), but improved while in supine position during initial imaging to normal or near-normal (NIHSS score 0-2). MRA showed persistent M1 MCA occlusions in 4, critical ICA stenosis or occlusion in 1, and substantial perfusion-diffusion mismatch in all. To evaluate the potential for eventual collateral failure, patients were placed in a head of bed upright posture. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were unchanged. Two showed no neurologic worsening and were treated with supportive care with excellent final outcome. Three showed worsening, including recurrent hemiparesis and aphasia at the 6th, recurrent aphasia at the 23rd, and recurrent hemineglect at the 15th upright minute. These 3 underwent endovascular recanalization therapies with successful reperfusion and excellent final outcome. CONCLUSION: The 'Heads Up' test may be a useful, simple maneuver to assess the risk of collateral failure and guide the decision to pursue recanalization therapy in acute cerebral ischemia patients with minimal deficits despite persisting large cerebral artery occlusion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".