012 Mechanical thrombectomy in pediatric stroke: systematic review, individual patient-data meta-analysis, and case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In adults, there is strong evidence demonstrating the superiority of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) plus intravenous thrombolysis over thrombolysis alone for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). The role of MT in the paediatric stroke population is less clear. Here we present an updated systematic review addressing the use of MT in paediatric patients, including three cases from our centre in Sydney, Australia. We have also completed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical and angiographic outcomes based on these results. Method Our systematic review and IPD meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-IPD (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Individual Participant Data) guidelines. Primary outcomes measures were change in NIHSS (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) score following MT, and mRS (modified Rankin Scale) score at final reported follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was final angiographic result using the mTICI (modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia) scale. Results MT resulted in good long-term neurological outcomes (mRS 0–2) in 60/67 cases (89.6%;follow-up timing µ=4.1 months: 95%CI 2.9–5.3), good short-term neurological outcomes (reduction in NIHSS by 8 or more points or post-MT NIHSS of 0–1) in 37/52 cases (71.2%), and successful recanalization (mTICI 2b/3) in 57/67 cases (85.1%). Conclusions In paediatric patients, MT is an effective treatment for ischaemic stroke due to LVO. In the absence of a dedicated prospective registry and with randomized control trails unfeasible, this report represents the best available evidence for the use of MT in the paediatric setting.
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 | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".