Intended Bridging Therapy or Intravenous Thrombolysis Alone in Minor Stroke With Basilar Artery Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Whether bridging therapy (intravenous thrombolysis [IVT] followed by mechanical thrombectomy) is superior to IVT alone in minor stroke with basilar artery occlusion remains uncertain. Methods: Multicentric retrospective observational study of consecutive minor stroke patients (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤5) with basilar artery occlusion intended for IVT alone or bridging therapy. Propensity-score weighting was used to reduce baseline between-groups differences, and residual imbalance was addressed through adjusted logistic regression, with excellent outcome (3-month modified Rankin Scale score 0–1) as the dependent variable. Results: Fifty-seven patients were included (28 and 29 in the bridging therapy and IVT alone groups, respectively). Following propensity-score weighting, the distribution of baseline clinical and radiological variables was similar across the 2 patient groups, except age, posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, history of hypertension and smoking, and onset-to-IVT time. Compared with IVT alone, bridging therapy was associated with excellent outcome (adjusted odds ratio=3.37 [95% CI, 1.13–10.03]; P =0.03). No patient experienced symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Conclusions: Our results suggest that bridging therapy may be superior to IVT alone in minor stroke with basilar artery occlusion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".