Acute basilar artery occlusion: Endovascular Interventions versus Standard Medical Treatment (BEST) Trial—Design and protocol for a randomized, controlled, multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Endovascular treatment plus standard medical therapy is superior to standard medical therapy alone for acute anterior proximal intracranial large artery occlusion strokes. The benefit of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke caused by basilar artery occlusion remains unproven. Aim This study compares the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment plus standard medical therapy versus standard medical therapy alone in acute ischemic stroke due to basilar artery occlusion. Design The study is a multicenter randomized control trial with blinded outcome assessment. A projected total 344 subjects with acute basilar arterial occlusion within 8 h of estimated occlusion time will be enrolled over three years in China. Patients will be assigned to endovascular treatment plus standard medical therapy and standard medical therapy alone group in 1:1 ratio for study centers. Study outcomes The primary outcome measure is a favorable functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Score of 0-3 at 90 days. The primary safety measure is mortality at 90 days. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 02441556). Summary The BEST trial will provide valuable insights into the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients with basilar 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".