Efficacy and safety of endovascular recanalization 6-24 h after onset in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of endovascular recanalization 6-24 h after onset in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion, and explore the related factors for their prognoses. Methods Clinical data of 37 patients with acute basilar artery occlusion, received endovascular recanalization in our hospital from January 2016 to July 2019, were retrospectively collected; 23 patients were into group of onset-to-puncture time (OPT)>6 h (6-24 h), and 14 patients were into group of OPT≤6 h (0-6 h). Statistical methods were used to compare the postoperative symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate, good prognosis rate (modified Rankin scale [mRS] scores≤3) and mortality 3 months after onset between the two groups; clinical data between the subgroups with good and poor prognoses in patients of group of OPT>6 h were compared. Results The postoperative symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate, and good prognosis rate and mortality of patients from group of OPT>6 h were 30.4%, 47.8% and 43.5%, respectively; and there were no statistically significant differences as compared with those in patients from group of OPT≤6 h (35.7%, 35.7%, and 42.9%, P>0.05). Scores of scales based on preoperative CTA images(posterior circulation-Alberta stroke program early CT scale [pc-ASPECTS], scale of posterior circulation on CTA [pc-CTA], and scale of basilar artery on CTA [BATMAN]) showed significant differences between the good prognosis subgroup and poor prognosis subgroup in patients from group of OPT>6 h (P<0.05). Conclusion Endovascular recanalization 6-24 h after onset is effective in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion, and the safety does not obviously decrease; scores of pc-ASPECTS, pc-CTA and BATMAN may be related to the clinical prognoses. Key words: Basilar artery occlusion; Time-window; Endovascular therapy; Curative effect; Safety
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".