Acute carotid stenting in patients undergoing thrombectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The benefit of acute carotid stenting compared with no acute stenting on clinical outcomes among patients with tandem lesions (TL) undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) remains unknown. Methods We conducted a a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing acute carotid stenting versus no stenting among TL patients undergoing EVT with regards to 90 day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and mortality. Four reviewers screened citations for eligibility and two assessed retained studies for risk of bias and data extraction. A random effects model was used for the synthesis of aggregated data. Results 21 studies (n=1635 patients) were identified for the systematic review; 19 were cohort studies, 1 was a post-hoc analysis of an EVT trial, and 1 was a pilot randomized controlled trial. 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Acute stenting was associated with a favorable 90 day mRS score: OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.07, 1.91). No significant heterogeneity between studies was found for this outcome (I2=17.0%; χ2=18.07, p=0.26). There were no statistically significant differences for 3 month mortality (OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.50, 1.28)) or sICH (OR 1.41 (95% CI 0.91, 2.19)). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that among TL patients undergoing EVT, acute carotid stenting is associated with a greater likelihood of favorable outcome at 90 days compared with no stenting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".