Intravenous Thrombolysis May Not Improve Clinical Outcome of Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Without a Baseline Vessel Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The benefit of thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients without a visible vessel occlusion still requires investigation. This study tested the hypothesis that non-lacunar stroke patients with no visible vessel occlusion on baseline imaging would have a favorable outcome regardless of treatment with alteplase. Methods: We utilized a prospectively collected registry of ischemic stroke patients (the International Stroke Perfusion Imaging Registry (INSPIRE) who had baseline computed tomographic perfusion and computed tomographic angiography. The rates of patients achieving modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-1 were compared between alteplase treated and untreated patients using logistic regression to generate odds ratios. Results: Of 1569 patients in the INSPIRE registry, 1277 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 306 (24%) had no identifiable occlusion and were eligible for alteplase, with 141 (46%) of these patients receiving thrombolysis. The treated and untreated groups had significantly different median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (alteplase 8, interquartile range (IQR) 5-10, untreated 6, IQR 4-8, P<0.001) and median volume of baseline perfusion lesion (alteplase 5.6 mL, IQR 1.3-17.7 mL, untreated 2.6 mL, IQR 0-6.7 mL, P<0.001). After propensity analysis, alteplase treated patients without a vessel occlusion were less likely to have an excellent outcome (mRS 0-1; 56%) than untreated (78.8%, OR, 0.42, 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.75, P=0.003). Conclusions: In this non-randomized comparison, alteplase treatment in patients without an identifiable vessel occlusion did not result in higher rates of favorable outcome compared to untreated. However, treated patients displayed less favorable baseline prognostic factors than the untreated group. Further studies may be required to confirm this data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".