Comparative study of direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging therapy for acute anterior circulation large-artery occlusive stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To comparatively analyze the safety and efficacy of direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging therapy for patients with acute anterior circulation large-artery occlusive stroke. Methods A total of 116 patients with acute anterior circulation large-artery occlusive stroke, admitted to our hospitals from October 2015 to March 2018, were chosen in our study; their clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Among them, 63 patients accepted direct mechanical thrombectomy and 53 accepted bridging therapy. The preoperative baseline data and the diagnoses and treatments of the two groups were analyzed; the degrees of modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI), incidences of hemorrhage transformation and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores and mortality rate 90 d after operation were compared between the two groups. Results The preoperative Alberta stroke program early CT scale (ASPECTS) and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of the direct mechanical thrombectomy group were significantly lower than those of the bridge therapy group (P 0.05). Conclusion The clinical efficacy and safety of direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging therapy for patients with acute anterior circulation large-artery occlusive stroke are similar. Key words: Ischemic stroke; Anterior circulation; Mechanical thrombectomy; Intravenous thrombolysis; Bridging therapy
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".