Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the publication of the five positive stroke thrombectomy trials, the American Heart Association issued a focused update in 2015 of its guidelines for early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke, including the uncertainty of benefit of thrombectomy in patients with an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) <6 (level IIb), recommending further clinical trials.1 Investigators in many of these studies were trained to dichotomize ASPECTS scoring during enrollment. Doing so not only yielded higher interobserver agreement, particularly when a threshold of 7 was used, but also simplified and expedited enrollment.2 This may have inadvertently led to a more widespread trend in dichotomizing ASPECTS in clinical practice, with the presence or absence of evidence as justification. In this month’s issue of JNIS , Mourand et al 3 challenge the ASPECTS <6 threshold by reporting their single center results of 60 stroke thrombectomy patients treated from 2009 to 2014 presenting with ASPECTS ≤5. Their results suggest that there may still be efficacy and safety with stroke thrombectomy in the presence of large core infarcts. Median admission National Institutes of Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 20 and median age was 66 years. Most patients were …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".