Comparative study of posterior and anterior circulation stroke in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objective</h3> To compare risk factors, clinical presentation, and outcomes after posterior circulation arterial ischemic stroke (PCAIS) and anterior circulation arterial ischemic stroke (ACAIS) in neonates and children. <h3>Methods</h3> In this international multicenter observational study including neonates and children up to 18 years of age with arterial ischemic stroke (AIS), we compared clinical and radiologic features according to stroke location. <h3>Results</h3> Of 2,768 AIS cases, 507 (18%) were located in the posterior circulation, 1,931 (70%) in the anterior circulation, and 330 (12%) involved both. PCAIS was less frequent in neonates compared to children (8.8% vs 22%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Children with PCAIS were older than children with ACAIS (median age 7.8 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.1–14] vs 5.1 [IQR 1.5–12] years, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and more often presented with headache (54% vs 32%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and a lower Pediatric NIH Stroke Scale score (4 [IQR 2–8] vs 8 [IQR 3–13], <i>p</i> = 0.001). Cervicocephalic artery dissections (CCAD) were more frequent (20% vs 8.5%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), while cardioembolic strokes were less frequent (19% vs 32%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) in PCAIS. Case fatality rates were equal in both groups (2.9%). PCAIS survivors had a better outcome (normal neurologic examination at hospital discharge in 29% vs 21%, <i>p</i> = 0.002) than ACAIS survivors, although this trend was only observed in children and not in neonates. <h3>Conclusion</h3> PCAIS is less common than ACAIS in both neonates and children. Children with PCAIS are older and have a higher rate of CCAD, lower clinical stroke severity, and better outcome than children with ACAIS.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".