The blood pressure paradox in acute ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association of poststroke baseline blood pressure with cerebral collateral flow and functional outcome in acute ischemic patients with large vessel occlusion/stenosis. METHODS: Patients identified with large vessel occlusion/stenosis with baseline multimodal computed tomography, follow-up imaging, and complete clinical profiles were included. A 90-day modified Rankin Scale of 0-1 was defined as an excellent functional outcome. Cerebral collateral flow was quantified by the volume ratio of tissue within the delay time >3 seconds perfusion lesion with severely delayed contrast transit (delay time >3 seconds/delay time >6 seconds). RESULTS: There were 306 patients included in this study. With every increase of 10 mmHg in baseline systolic blood pressure, the odds of achieving an excellent functional outcome decreased by 12% in multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 0.88, p = 0.048). Conversely, increased baseline blood pressure was associated with better collateral flow. In subgroup analysis of patients with major reperfusion, higher blood pressure was associated with decreased infarct growth and a better clinical outcome, and vice versa in patients without reperfusion. INTERPRETATION: Higher baseline blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion/stenosis was associated with better collateral flow. However, for patients without reperfusion, higher baseline blood pressure was associated with increased infarct growth, leading to an unfavorable clinical outcome. The relationship between blood pressure and outcomes is highly dependent on reperfusion, and active blood pressure-lowering treatment may be inappropriate in acute ischemic stroke patients prior to reperfusion treatment. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:331-339.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".