MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613242411 · doi:10.1159/000475535

A Comparison of Mechanical Thrombectomy in the M1 and M2 Segments of the Middle Cerebral Artery: A Review of 585 Consecutive Patients

2017· review· en· W2613242411 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neurology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMiddle cerebral arteryStroke (engine)CohortOcclusionInternal medicineComputed tomographicIschemic strokeCardiologySurgeryIschemiaComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Mechanical thrombectomy for anterior-circulation large-vessel occlusion has shown benefit; however, the question of whether this technique is safe and effective in the distal vasculature remains unanswered. We sought to compare the outcome data from mechanical thrombectomy of the M2 branches of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) with those of the M1 segment. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy of isolated M1 or M2 branches of the MCA between August 2008 and August 2016. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We identified 585 patients, 479 with M1 occlusions and 106 with M2 occlusions. The average age was 72 ± 12.8 and 68 ± 13.8 years, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.007). The baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic (ASPECT) score was similar in both cohorts, but patients with M1 occlusions presented with higher mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores of 15.7 compared to 11.8 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the average procedure time for each cohort; fewer thrombectomy attempts were required in the M2 cohort (2.3 vs. 1.8, <i>p</i> = 0.0004), but the overall time to recanalization was longer in the M2 cohort (353 vs. 399 min, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Similar rates of successful reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Ischaemic Stroke score [TICI] ≥2b 88.5 vs. 90.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.612) were seen, but food outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) was lower in M1 occlusions (37.2 vs. 54.3%, <i>p </i>< 0.001). Rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage were similar. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Good clinical outcomes can be achieved for both groups with no significant differences in procedure length, final TICI recanalization rates or intracranial haemorrhage between the M1 and M2 cohorts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it