MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009608005 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.11

Abstract 11: Assessing the True ImpACT-24B: Magnitude of Benefit of Sphenopalatine Ganglion Stimulation for Acute Ischemic Stroke with Confirmed Cortical Involvement

2020· article· en· W3009608005 on OpenAlexaff
Fausto E Ordonez, David S. Liebeskind, M. Bahr, A . Shuaib, Natan M. Bornstein, Michael D. Hill, Carlos A. Molina, Jeffrey L. Saver

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNumber needed to treatStroke (engine)StimulationAnesthesiaConfidence intervalInternal medicineRelative risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation enhances collateral flow, stabilizes blood-brain barrier, and showed evidence of benefit in patients with confirmed cortical involvement (CCI) when started 8-24h after onset in the ImpACT-24B randomized trial. To characterize SPG stimulation benefit magnitude, we derived number needed to treat (NNT) values based on shifts over all levels of 3 month global disability. Methods: From the distribution of the 7-level modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3m in SPG- and sham-stimulation CCI patients, NNT to benefit (NNTB) and NNT to harm (NNTH) values were derived by automated (algorithmic min-max) and expert generation of joint outcome distribution tables. For dichotomized mRS outcomes, net NNT values were derived directly from absolute risk differences. Results: Among 520 patients with confirmed cortical infarction ineligible for thrombolysis, 244 were treated with SPG and 276 with sham stimulation. NNT values for dichotomized and shift mRS outcomes are shown in the Table. Of the 6 possible binary cutpoints on the mRS, 4 showed more favorable outcome with SPG stimulation. The dichotomized endpoint with the greatest group difference was ambulatory and capable of bodily self-care (mRS 0-3), 62.3% vs 51.1%, NNTB 8.9. Across all 6 individual possible dichotomizations of the mRS, the NNTB ranged from 8.9 to -166.7. For shifts by 1 or more levels across all 6 transitions of the mRS, the biologically most plausible NNTB was 5.7 (IQR 5.6-6.5), NNTH 34.5 (IQR 30.3-40.0), and net NNTB 6.8 (IQR 6.5-7.7), These values correlated closely with the automatically derived net NNTB of 5.9. Conclusions: The findings of this pivotal trial indicate that, out of every 1000 CCI patients treated with SPG stimulation, 146 patients will have a less disabled 3-month outcome, including 76 more who will be functionally independent. SPG stimulation can substantially improve the outcome of thrombolysis-ineligible acute ischemic stroke patients.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207