MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3006280098 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.106

Abstract 106: Safety and Efficacy of Sonothrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion: International Collaborative Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

2020· article· en· W3006280098 on OpenAlexaff
Georgios Tsivgoulis, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Jürgen Eggers, Vincent Larrue, Lars Thomassen, James C. Grotta, Dimitris Mavridis, Peter D. Schellinger, Georgios Seitidis, Andrew M. Demchuk, Vojtěch Novotný, Carlos A. Molina, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki, Martin Köhrmann, Lauri Soinne, Andrej Netland Khanevski, Andrew D. Barreto, Maher Saqqur, Θεοδώρα Ψαλτοπούλου, Keith W. Muir, Jochen B. Fiebach, Travis Rothlisberger, Thomas A. Kent, Pitchaiah Mandava, Anne W. Alexandrov, Andrei V. Alexandrov

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioStroke (engine)Intracerebral hemorrhageAsymptomaticOcclusionMeta-analysisInternal medicineSurgerySubarachnoid hemorrhageMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Conflicting evidence has been published regarding the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-enhanced thrombolysis (sonothrombolysis) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO). Methods: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sonothrombolysis with or without addition of microspheres (treatment group) to intravenous thrombolysis alone (control group) in AIS patients with LVO. Results: We included 6 in total RCTs that enrolled 1077 AIS patients. A total of 138 and 134 confirmed LVO patients were randomized to treatment and control groups respectively (median age 68 years, 58% men, median baseline NIHSS score 16). Patients randomized to sonothrombolysis had increased odds of complete recanalization compared to patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis alone (40.3% vs. 22.4%; OR=2.30, 95%CI: 1.05-5.02; adjusted OR=2.33, 95%CI: 1.02-5.34). They also tended to have increased odds of any (complete or partial recanalization (66.4% vs. 53.0%; OR=1.78, 95%CI: 0.95-3.33; adjusted OR=1.85, 95%CI: 0.97-3.53). The likelihood of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between the two groups (7.3% vs. 3.7%, OR=2.52, 95%CI: 0.77-8.29; adjusted OR=2.55, 95%CI: 0.76-8.52). No differences in the likelihood of asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted OR: 1.30, 95%CI: 0.38-4.39), three-month mortality (adjusted OR: 1.23, 95%CI: 0.25-6.05), three-month favorable functional outcome (mRS-scores of 0-1; adjusted OR: 1.43, 95%CI: 0.64-3.19) and three-month functional independence (mRS-scores of 0-2; adjusted OR: 1.43, 95%CI: 0.77-2.64) were documented. Conclusion: Sonothrombolysis was associated with a two-fold increase in the odds of complete recanalization compared to intravenous thrombolysis alone in AIS patients with LVOs. Further study of the safety and efficacy of sonothrombolysis is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.050
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications→French-language works237,207→