MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2773695619 · doi:10.1161/str.47.suppl_1.tp50

Abstract TP50: Efficacy of Stent-retriever Thrombectomy in MRI Vs. CT Perfusion Selected Patients in SWIFT PRIME

2016· article· en· W2773695619 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Bonafé, Jeffrey L. Saver, Mayank Goyal, Reza Jahan, Hans‐Christoph Diener, Elad I. Levy, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Christophe Cognard, Dileep R. Yavagal, Gregory W. Albers

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineRandomizationPerfusionMagnetic resonance imagingSolitaire Cryptographic AlgorithmPerfusion scanningStroke (engine)RadiologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineModified Rankin ScaleIschemiaIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The majority of patients enrolled in SWIFT PRIME had CT perfusion imaging immediately prior to randomization; 34 patients were randomized following a diffusion and perfusion MRI. Methods: Patients with MCA (M1) and distal carotid occlusions were randomized to treatment with tPA alone vs. tPA + Solitaire stent retriever. The primary outcome was the distribution of the mRS at 90 days. The same automated software (RAPID) was used for both MRI and CTP patients to identify patients with the Target mismatch profile for enrollment. Results: MRI selection was performed in 34 patients; CTP in 139. Mean age was 71 years (MRI) vs. 68 years (CTP), p=0.08; baseline NIHSS was 17 in both groups. Target mismatch profile was present in 95% (MRI) vs. 83% (CTP), p=0.3. Median time from ER arrival to randomization was 69 min (MRI) vs. 67 min (CTP), p=0.61. A higher percentage of the MRI group was transferred from an outside hospital (59% vs. 35%, p=0.02) and therefore the time from stroke onset to randomization was longer in the MRI group (236 minutes vs. 179 minutes, p=0.003.) Baseline median ischemic core volumes were similar in the MRI vs. CTP group (7 ml vs. 5 ml); baseline perfusion lesions were larger in the MRI group (133 ml vs. 97 ml, P=0.01) Reperfusion rates (> 90%/TICI 3) did not differ in the Solitaire treated patients in the MRI (94%) vs. CTP (85%) groups, p=0.7. The primary efficacy analysis (distribution of mRS at 90 days) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit in both the MRI (p=0.02) and CTP subgroups (p=0.01). Among MRI selected patients, mRS 0-2 at 90 days occurred in 63% of the Solitaire group vs. 33% of the tPA alone group (ARR 30%, p=0.17) and infarct growth was reduced (17 ml vs. 50 ml, p=0.089). CTP selected patients had mRS 0-2 rates at 90 days of 60% in the Solitaire group vs. 40% tPA alone (ARR 20%, p=0.025) and a reduction in infarct growth (14 vs. 27 ml, p=0.047). Conclusions: Although MRI selected patients in SWIFT PRIME were slightly older and treated longer after symptom onset, they demonstrated a statistically significant benefit on the primary efficacy endpoint. Reductions in infarct growth and rates of favorable clinical outcomes in the MR subgroup were also comparable to those seen in the CT perfusion subgroup.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→