101 Case report: to stent, or not to stent? The pale cast of evidence-based practice in acute stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction With approximately 200 procedures performed in the last year at our centre, worthwhile clinical lessons continue to emerge in the practice of endovascular clot retrieval (ECR) for acute stroke. This case demonstrates the value of considered clinical appraisal in a dynamic, information-rich setting. A 68 year-old man with established vertebrobasilar atherosclerotic disease developed capricious, blood pressure-sensitive neurological deficits after successful ECR for a basilar artery stroke, inviting the possibility of further intervention in the form of intracranial stenting. We avoided pursuing this course of action in favour of a more measured approach, entailing the provision of vasopressor support over the following week. Method Following ECR, our patient was admitted to the intensive care unit for continuous blood pressure monitoring and close observation of his neurological deficits with serial NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) scoring. Systolic blood pressures were maintained between 140–160 mmHg using vasopressor support, with the aim of allowing time for recovery of vascular autoregulation and collateralization. Results Over six days, the patient developed moderate left upper and lower limb weakness. An MRI performed on Day 5 revealed limited interval infarction of the right hemipons and cerebellum, with complete re-occlusion of the mid-basilar arterial segment. He left the ICU with a NIHSS score of 7, and was living independently at 90-day follow-up (Modified Rankin Score 1). Conclusion The ultimately favourable net outcome for our patient clearly illustrates the imperative to remain within the boundaries of evidence-based practice in this bold and rapidly evolving discipline.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".