Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages (ERIC) versus conventional stent retrievers for thrombectomy: a propensity score-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages (ERIC) is one of the latest devices for thrombectomies. It has several architectural features that are supposed to enhance its ability to remove clots and prevent distal emboli. We aimed to compare ERIC with standard stent retrievers (SRs) using propensity score (PS) matching. METHODS: The clinical and radiological data of all consecutive patients treated with ERIC or standard FDA-approved stent retrievers were collected from a prospective multicenter registry. We compared procedural outcomes (recanalization rates according to the modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) score and procedural complications) and clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 3 months). Matching of the populations with PS was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1230 patients were included. In both the PS-matched cohort (195 ERIC patients, 630 SR patients) and the inverse probability of treatment weighting PS-adjusted cohort (206 ERIC patients, 1024 SR patients) there was no difference in terms of successful recanalization (modified TICI score ≥2b), good clinical outcome (mRS=0-2 or equal to pre-stroke mRS), or mortality at 3 months. Patients treated with first-line ERIC had a higher rate of complete recanalization (mTICI 3); however, they also required more passes and more frequent rescue therapy than the SR patient group. CONCLUSION: In a large multicenter registry with PS matching, the ERIC device provided equivalent angiographic and clinical results to conventional SRs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT03776877.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".