Stroke Laterality Did Not Modify Outcomes in the HERMES Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data of 7 Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- There is contradictory evidence on the impact of the stroke side (hemisphere) on outcomes. We investigated any effect modification by laterality on stroke patients' outcomes in recent endovascular trials. Methods- Individual patient-level data were combined in this meta-analysis of all patients included in randomized trials comparing endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischemic patients with stroke (HERMES [Highly Effective Reperfusion Using Multiple Endovascular Devices] Collaboration). We stratified the 90-day functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale according to the stroke side of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus standard care, adjusted for important prognostic variables. Results- The meta-analysis included 1737 patients (871 right hemispheric strokes and 866 left hemispheric) from 7 trials. Baseline median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores were significantly higher in left (20) versus right (16) hemispheric strokes (P<0.001). Other clinical and radiological baseline characteristics were similar. The beneficial response to endovascular therapy assessed by 90-day modified Rankin Scale shift was not modified by the side of the stroke. There were no significant differences between right and left hemispheric stroke in the 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score ≤2; 40.7% [95% CI, 37.4%-44.1%] versus 37.6% [95% CI, 37.4%-44.1%]; P=0.19), median final infarct volumes (45 versus 39.5 mL, P=0.51), nor 90-day mortality (15.1% vs 16.8%, P=0.31). Conclusions- Stroke side was not a prognostic factor and did not modify the treatment effect among patients treated in the endovascular or control groups in recent endovascular thrombectomy trials.
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 | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".