A randomized controlled trial to test efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in stroke with extended lesion and extended time window
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The benefit of thrombectomy in patients with intracranial large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation has been shown in selected patients in previous randomized controlled trials, but patients with extended ischemic lesions were excluded in the majority of these trials. TENSION aims to demonstrate efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with extended lesions in an extended time window (up to 12 h from onset or from last seen well). DESIGN: TENSION is an investigator-initiated, randomized controlled, open label, blinded endpoint, European, two-arm, postmarket study to compare the safety and effectiveness of thrombectomy as compared to best medical care alone in stroke patients with extended stroke lesions defined by an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scan score of 3-5 and in an extended time window. In an adaptive design study, up to 665 patients will be randomized. OUTCOMES: Primary efficacy endpoint will be clinical outcome defined by the modified Rankin Scale at 90-day poststroke. The main safety endpoint will be death and dependency (modified Rankin Scale 4-6) at 90 days. Additional effect measures include adverse events, health-related quality of life, poststroke depression, and costs utility assessment. DISCUSSION: TENSION may make effective treatment available for patients with severe stroke in an extended time window, thereby improving functional outcome and quality of life of thousands of stroke patients and reducing the individual, societal, and economic burden of death and disability resulting from severe stroke. TENSION is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03094715).
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".