Characteristics and Outcome in Children With Craniectomy Following Acute Ischemic Stroke in the International Pediatric Stroke Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcome of children with acute ischemic stroke treated with craniectomy has not been thoroughly examined. In adults, hemicraniectomy after middle cerebral artery territory stroke and posterior decompression after posterior circulation stroke has been shown to improve outcome. Pediatric cases of hemicraniectomy for middle cerebral artery stroke and posterior decompression following posterior circulation stroke suggest relatively good outcome. There are no published data in adults or children with craniectomy after cerebral sinovenous thrombosis. Our aim was to determine the outcome of children with acute ischemic stroke treated with craniectomy in the International Pediatric Stroke Study (IPSS). We included children enrolled who had a craniectomy following stroke presentation. Of 4294 patients in IPSS, 38 children (1%) were found to have craniectomy following an ischemic stroke. Of 38 craniectomy cases, 29 had anterior circulation strokes, 5 had posterior circulation strokes, and 4 had cerebral sinovenous thromboses. The mortality rate was 8%. Overall, children who have craniectomies have significant neurologic deficits. Prospective studies are needed to examine long-term morbidity following craniectomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".