Pretreatment predictors of malignant evolution in patients with ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few data exist on malignant middle cerebral artery infarction (MMI) among patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) after endovascular treatment (ET). Numerous predictors of MMI evolution have been proposed, but a comprehensive research of patients undergoing ET has never been performed. Our purpose was to find a practical model to determine robust predictors of MMI in patients undergoing ET. METHODS: Patients from a prospective single-center database with AIS secondary to large intracranial vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation, treated with ET, were retrospectively analyzed. We investigated demographic, clinical, and radiological data. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify clinical and imaging predictors of MMI. RESULTS: 98 patients were included in the analysis, 35 of whom developed MMI (35.7%). No differences in the rate of successful reperfusion and time from stroke onset to reperfusion were found between the MMI and non-MMI groups. The following parameters were identified as independent predictors of MMI: systolic blood pressure (SBP) on admission (p=0.008), blood glucose (BG) on admission (p=0.024), and the CTangiography (CTA) Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (p=0.001). A scoreof ≤5 in CTA ASPECTS was the best cut-off to predict MMI evolution (sensitivity 46%; specificity 97%; positive predictive value 78%; negative predictive value 65%). CONCLUSIONS: in our study a clinical and radiological features-based model was strongly predictive of MMI evolution in AIS. High SBP and BG on admission and, especially, a CTA ASPECTS ≤5 may help to make decisions quickly, regardless of time to treatment and successful reperfusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".