MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883313499 · doi:10.1177/1747493018790024

Tenecteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: A review of completed and ongoing randomized controlled trials

2018· review· en· W2883313499 on OpenAlexafffund
Shelagh B. Coutts, Eivind Berge, Bruce Campbell, Keith W. Muir, Mark Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsTenecteplaseMedicineThrombolysisTissue plasminogen activatorFibrinolytic agentStroke (engine)Thrombolytic drugClinical trialReteplaseIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alteplase has been the mainstay of thrombolytic treatment since the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke trial was published in 1995. Over recent years, several trials have investigated alternative thrombolytic agents. Tenecteplase, a genetically engineered mutant tissue plasminogen activator, has a longer half-life, allowing single intravenous bolus administration without infusion, is more fibrin specific, produces less systemic depletion of circulating fibrinogen, and is more resistant to plasminogen activator inhibitor compared to alteplase. Tenecteplase is established as the first-line intravenous thrombolytic drug for myocardial infarction, where it has been shown to achieve comparable reperfusion with reduced risk of systemic bleeding in comparison to alteplase. We review the literature on tenecteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, with a focus on the major completed and ongoing trials. Overall, tenecteplase shows promise for treatment of acute ischemic stroke, both in populations currently eligible for alteplase and also in groups not currently treated with thrombolysis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207