MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095392249 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-75609-1

Endovascular treatment and cognitive outcome after anterior circulation ischemic stroke

2020· article· en· W3095392249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simona Lattanzi, Michela Coccia, Alessandra Pulcini, Claudia Cagnetti, Federica Galli, Laura Villani, Serena Campa, Mauro Dobran, Gabriele Polonara, Maria Gabriella Ceravolo, Mauro Silvestrini

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroop effectMedicineStroke (engine)Confidence intervalNeuropsychologyNeuropsychological testCognitionThrombolysisInternal medicineExecutive functionsCardiologyPsychiatryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The impact of reperfusion therapies on cognition has been poorly explored and little knowledge exists. We explored the influence of endovascular treatment (EVT) on cognitive outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischemic stroke. Patients presenting with ischemic stroke due to anterior large vessel occlusion who underwent intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone or EVT plus IVT were recruited. Cognitive abilities were evaluated at 6 months from stroke through a neuropsychological test battery. A total of 88 patients with a mean age of 66.3 ± 12.9 years were included, of which 38 treated with IVT alone and 50 with IVT plus EVT. Compared to patients treated with IVT alone, patients who received EVT plus IVT performed significantly better at the neuropsychological tests exploring executive functions, attention, abstract reasoning, visuospatial ability, visual and verbal and memory. At multivariable regression analysis, the EVT was independently associated with the 6-month cognitive performance after the adjustment for age, sex, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, systolic blood pressure, glucose level, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score, side of stroke, site of occlusion, and Back Depression Inventory score [Stroop Test Word Reading: adjβ = 13.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.47–19.50, p < 0.001; Stroop Test Colour Naming: adjβ = 6.63, 95% CI 2.46–10.81, p = 0.002; Trail Making Test-A: adjβ = − 92.98, 95% CI − 153.76 to − 32.20, p = 0.003; Trail Making Test-B: adjβ = − 181.12, 95% CI − 266.09 to − 96.15; p < 0.001; Digit Span Test Forward: adjβ = 1.44, 95% CI 0.77–2.10, p < 0.001; Digit Span Test Backward: adjβ = 1.10, 95% CI 0.42–1.77, p = 0.002; Coloured Progressive Matrices: adjβ = 5.82, 95% CI 2.71–8.93, p < 0.001; Rey Complex Figure Test-Copy: adjβ = 6.02, 95% CI 2.74–9.30, p < 0.001; Rey Complex Figure Test-Immediate recall: adjβ = 6.00, 95% CI 2.34–9.66, p = 0.002; Rey Complex Figure Test-Delayed recall: adjβ = 5.73, 95% CI 1.95–9.51, p = 0.003; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test-Immediate recall: adjβ = 12.60, 95% CI 6.69–18.52, p < 0.001; Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test-Delayed recall: adjβ = 1.85, 95% CI 0.24–3.45, p = 0.025]. Patients treated with EVT plus IVT had better cognitive performance than patients treated with IVT alone at 6 months from anterior circulation ischemic stroke.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207