Coexistent Sickle Cell Disease Has No Impact on the Safety or Outcome of Lytic Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— The recommended treatment for ischemic stroke is tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator). Although sickle cell disease (SCD) represents no known contraindication to tPA, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health recommended acute exchange transfusion for stroke in SCD, not tPA. Data on safety and outcomes of tPA in patients are needed to guide tPA use in SCD. Methods— We matched patients from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry with SCD to patients without SCD and compared usage, complications, and discharge outcomes after tPA. Multivariable logistic regression models using generalized estimating equations were used to assess outcomes. Results— From 2 016 652 stroke patients admitted to Get With The Guidelines-Stroke sites in the United States, 832 SCD and 3328 non-SCD controls with no differences in admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale or blood pressure were identified. Neither the fraction receiving thrombolytic therapy (8.2% for SCD versus 9.4% non-SCD) nor symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (4.9% of SCD versus 3.2% non-SCD; P =0.4502) was different. There was no difference in a prespecified set of outcome measures for those with SCD compared with controls. Conclusions— Coexistent SCD had no significant impact on the safety or outcome of thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke. Although the sample size is relatively small, these data suggest that adults with SCD and acute ischemic stroke should be treated with thrombolysis, if they otherwise qualify. Addition studies, however, should track the intracranial hemorrhage rate and provide information on other SCD-related care such as transfusion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".