Does Sex Modify the Effect of Endovascular Treatment for Ischemic Stroke?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Previous studies have reported less favorable outcome and less effect of endovascular treatment (EVT) after ischemic stroke in women than in men. Our aim was to study the influence of sex on outcome and on the effect of EVT for ischemic stroke in recent randomized trials on EVT. Methods- We used data from 7 randomized controlled trials on EVT within the HERMES collaboration. The primary outcome was 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale). We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between men and women. With ordinal logistic regression, we evaluated the association between EVT and 90-day functional outcome for men and women separately, adjusted for potential confounders. We tested for interaction between sex and EVT. Results- We included 1762 patients in the analyses, of whom 833 (47%) were women. Women were older (median, 70 versus 66 years; P<0.001), were smoking less often (30% versus 44%; P<0.001), and had higher collateral grades (grade 3: 46% versus 35%; P<0.001) than men. Functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2) at 90 days was reached by 318 women (39%) and 364 men (39%). The effect of EVT on the ordinal modified Rankin Scale was similar in women (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.47-3.07) and men (acOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.59-2.96), with a P for interaction of 0.926. Conclusions- Sex does not influence clinical outcome after EVT and does not modify treatment effect of EVT. Therefore, sex should not be a consideration in the selection of patients for EVT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".