Antegrade or Retrograde Approach for the Management of Tandem Occlusions in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundAcute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality, and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is an effective treatment for AIS. AIS caused by tandem intracranial and extracranial occlusions are not rare. Evidence for optimal MT strategy regarding order of treatment, including antegrade (extracranial first) or retrograde (intracranial first) approach is lacking. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis is necessary to compare the two approaches for optimal management of tandem lesions in AIS.MethodsThis study will be performed with accordance to the PRISMA statement. Major databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library will be used for literature search. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational studies will be included. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria or Newcastle–Ottawa Scale according to type of study. Two reviewers will independently screen for eligible studies and perform data extraction. The primary outcomes are successful recanalization at post-intervention, and favorable outcome at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include duration of onset to arrival, onset to puncture, onset to recanalization, intracerebral hemorrhage, procedure and device related complications and mortality at 3-month follow-up. We will assess heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Specific results will be described in narrative form when insufficient suitable studies are available for meta-analysis.DiscussionThis study will provide a reliable evidence base for antegrade or retrograde approach for the management of tandem lesions in AIS by synthesizing evidence from current pieces of literature comparing the two approaches, and also will provide updated clinical evidence of strategy selection and decision-making for this special group of patients. PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199093
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 | 0.055 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.004 |
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".