ERic Acute StrokE Recanalization: A study using predictive analytics to assess a new device for mechanical thrombectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and hypothesis Using a new study design, we investigate whether next-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices improve clinical outcomes in ischemic stroke patients. We hypothesize that this new methodology is superior to intravenous tissue plasminogen activator therapy alone. Methods and design ERic Acute StrokE Recanalization is an investigator-initiated prospective single-arm, multicenter, controlled, open label study to compare the safety and effectiveness of a new recanalization device and distal access catheter in acute ischemic stroke patients with symptoms attributable to acute ischemic stroke and vessel occlusion of the internal cerebral artery or middle cerebral artery. Study outcome The primary effectiveness endpoint is the volume of saved tissue. Volume of saved tissue is defined as difference of the actual infarct volume and the brain volume that is predicted to develop infarction by using an optimized high-level machine learning model that is trained on data from a historical cohort treated with IV tissue plasminogen activator. Sample size estimates Based on own preliminary data, 45 patients fulfilling all inclusion criteria need to complete the study to show an efficacy >38% with a power of 80% and a one-sided alpha error risk of 0.05 (based on a one sample t-test). Discussion ERic Acute StrokE Recanalization is the first prospective study in interventional stroke therapy to use predictive analytics as primary and secondary endpoint. Such trial design cannot replace randomized controlled trials with clinical endpoints. However, ERic Acute StrokE Recanalization could serve as an exemplary trial design for evaluating nonpivotal neurovascular interventions.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".