MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003162400 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a6397

Endovascular Treatment Decisions in Patients with M2 Segment MCA Occlusions

2020· article· en· W3003162400 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Almekhlafi, Johanna M. Ospel, Gustavo Saposnik, Nima Kashani, Andrew M. Demchuk, Michael D. Hill, Mayank Goyal, Bijoy K. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of CalgaryFreiwillige Akademische GesellschaftUniversität BaselServierStrykerCelgene
KeywordsMedicineEndovascular treatmentOcclusionStroke (engine)Emergency medicineInternal medicineSurgeryAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:</h3> Endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke is rapidly evolving. We explored physicians’ treatment attitudes and practice in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to M2 occlusion, given the absence of Level-1 guidelines. <h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</h3> We conducted an international multidisciplinary survey among physicians involved in acute stroke care. Respondents were presented with 10 of 22 case scenarios (4 with proximal M2 occlusions and 1 with a small-branch M2 occlusion) and asked about their treatment approach under A) current local resources, and B) assumed ideal conditions (no monetary or infrastructural restraints). Overall treatment decisions were evaluated; subgroup analyses by physician and patient baseline characteristics were performed. <h3>RESULTS:</h3> A total of 607 physicians participated. Most of the respondents decided in favor of endovascular therapy in M2 occlusions, both under current local resources and assumed ideal conditions (65.4% versus 69.6%; <i>P</i> = .017). Under current local resources, older patient age (<i>P</i> &lt; .001), longer time since symptom onset (<i>P</i> &lt; .001), high center endovascular therapy volume (<i>P</i> &lt; .001), high personal endovascular therapy volume (<i>P</i> = .005), and neurosurgeons (<i>P</i> &lt; .001) were more likely to favor endovascular therapy. European respondents were less likely to favor endovascular therapy (<i>P</i> = .001). Under assumed ideal conditions, older patient age (<i>P</i> &lt; .001), longer time since symptom onset (<i>P</i> &lt; .001), high center endovascular therapy volume (<i>P</i> = .041), high personal endovascular therapy volume (<i>P</i> = .002), and Asian respondents were more likely to favor endovascular therapy (<i>P</i> = .037). Respondents with more experience (<i>P</i> = .048) and high annual stroke thrombolysis treatment volume (<i>P</i> = .001) were less likely to favor endovascular therapy. <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> Patients with M2 occlusions are considered appropriate candidates for endovascular therapy by most respondents in this survey, especially by those performing endovascular therapy more often and those practicing in high-volume centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207