Abstract TMP25: Effects of Age and Ethnicity on the Benefits and Risks of Low- versus Standard-dose Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients: The Enchanted Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: As lower doses of alteplase reduce the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), older and Asian people may benefit more from low-dose alteplase than other patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: Data from the ENhanced Control of Hypertension ANd Thrombolysis strokE study (ENCHANTED), an international, multi-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial, were analyzed to assess effects of low- (0.6mg/kg body weight) vs. standard-dose (0.9mg/kg) alteplase in AIS patients, by age and ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), pre-specified subgroup analyses, on key efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: 3297 patients (1248 female), mean age 67 years were included. After adjusting for baseline characteristics and management variables over the first seven days, increasing age was associated with poor outcome, defined by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin score (mRS) (shift to a less favorable outcome, P trend <0.0001). In the comparison between low- and standard-dose alteplase, no significant differences were observed for 90-day poor outcome by age deciles and ethnicity. Less sICH was observed with low-dose alteplase, and this was consistent for age and ethnicity. There was no ethnic difference in the treatment effects by age, severity, and time to treatment. Conclusions: Increasing age predicts poor outcome in thrombolysis-treated AIS patients. There was no heterogeneity in the treatment effects of low- vs. standard-dose alteplase. Decisions about intravenous thrombolysis should be based on variables other than age and ethnicity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".