Efficacy of Stent-Retriever Thrombectomy in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomographic Perfusion–Selected Patients in SWIFT PRIME Trial (Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— The majority of patients enrolled in SWIFT PRIME trial (Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke) had computed tomographic perfusion (CTP) imaging before randomization; 34 patients were randomized after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods— Patients with middle cerebral artery and distal carotid occlusions were randomized to treatment with tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) alone or tPA+stentriever thrombectomy. The primary outcome was the distribution of the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days. Patients with the target mismatch profile for enrollment were identified on MRI and CTP. Results— MRI selection was performed in 34 patients; CTP in 139 patients. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 17 in both groups. Target mismatch profile was present in 95% (MRI) versus 83% (CTP). A higher percentage of the MRI group was transferred from an outside hospital ( P =0.02), and therefore, the time from stroke onset to randomization was longer in the MRI group ( P =0.003). Time from emergency room arrival to randomization did not differ in CTP versus MRI-selected patients. Baseline ischemic core volumes were similar in both groups. Reperfusion rates (>90%/TICI [Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction] score 3) did not differ in the stentriever-treated patients in the MRI versus CTP groups. The primary efficacy analysis (90-day mRS score) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit in both subgroups (MRI, P =0.02; CTP, P =0.01). Infarct growth was reduced in the stentriever-treated group in both MRI and CTP groups. Conclusions— Time to randomization was significantly longer in MRI-selected patients; however, site arrival to randomization times were not prolonged, and the benefits of endovascular therapy were similar. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01657461.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".