Comparison of Endovascular Treatment with Intravenous Thrombolysis for Isolated M2 Segment of Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefit of endovascular treatment for distal large artery ischemic occlusions such as M2 segment of middle cerebral artery is not clear. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 51 subjects who had an isolated M2 segment occlusion on baseline computed tomographic (CT) angiogram who were randomized to either intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) followed by endovascular treatment or IV rt-PA alone in a multicenter trial. We determined the effect of endovascular treatment on occurrence of excellent [mRS (modified Rankin scale) scores of 0-1] functional outcomes at three months and any death within 3 and 12 months. We also performed proportional odds logistic regression analysis to compare the distribution of mRS scores between the two groups. Each of the analyses was adjusted for age, baseline Alberta stroke program early CT score strata, and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke scale score strata. RESULTS: = 0.022) were significantly lower among those who were randomized to endovascular treatment. CONCLUSION: In this post-hoc analysis, acute ischemic stroke subjects who had isolated M2 segment occlusion randomized to endovascular treatment appeared to have lower mortality and a trend toward lower grades of disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".