MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028006966 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111386

Thrombolysis with alteplase 3–4.5 hours after acute ischaemic stroke: trial reanalysis adjusted for baseline imbalances

2020· article· en· W3028006966 on OpenAlexaff
Brian S. Alper, Gary Foster, Lehana Thabane, Alex Rae-Grant, Meghan Malone-Moses, Eric Manheimer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)Modified Rankin ScaleIschaemic strokeClinical trialPlaceboInternal medicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialTissue plasminogen activatorIschemic strokeIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Alteplase is commonly recommended for acute ischaemic stroke within 4.5 hours after stroke onset. The Third European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS III) is the only trial reporting statistically significant efficacy for clinical outcomes for alteplase use 3-4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, baseline imbalances in history of prior stroke and stroke severity score may confound this apparent finding of efficacy. We reanalysed the ECASS III trial data adjusting for baseline imbalances to determine the robustness or sensitivity of the efficacy estimates. DESIGN: Reanalysis of randomised placebo-controlled trial. We obtained access to the ECASS III trial data and replicated the previously reported analyses to confirm our understanding of the data. We adjusted for baseline imbalances using multivariable analyses and stratified analyses and performed sensitivity analysis for missing data. SETTING: Emergency care. PARTICIPANTS: 821 adults with acute ischaemic stroke who could be treated 3-4.5 hours after symptom onset. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg of body weight) or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The original primary efficacy outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0 or 1 (ie, being alive without any disability) and the original secondary efficacy outcome was a global outcome based on a composite of functional end points, both at 90 days. Adjusted analyses were only reported for the primary efficacy outcome and the original study protocol did not specify methods for adjusted analyses. Our adjusted reanalysis included these outcomes, symptom-free status (mRS 0), dependence-free status (mRS 0-2), mortality (mRS 6) and change across the mRS 0-6 spectrum at 90 days; and mortality and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage at 7 days. RESULTS: We replicated previously reported unadjusted analyses but discovered they were based on a modified interpretation of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score. The secondary efficacy outcome was no longer significant using the original NIHSS score. Previously reported adjusted analyses could only be replicated with significant effects for the primary efficacy outcome by using statistical approaches not reported in the trial protocol or statistical analysis plan. In analyses adjusting for baseline imbalances, all efficacy outcomes were not significant, but increases in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage remained significant. CONCLUSIONS: Reanalysis of the ECASS III trial data with multiple approaches adjusting for baseline imbalances does not support any significant benefits and continues to support harms for the use of alteplase 3-4.5 hours after stroke onset. Clinicians, patients and policymakers should reconsider interpretations and decisions regarding management of acute ischaemic stroke that were based on ECASS III results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00153036.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.016
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designMeta-analysis · Other design
DomainMethods
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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207