Abstract P498: Quality of Reperfusion - Association of Stent Retriever Characteristics and Successful Reperfusion in ESCAPE-NA1 Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We evaluated technical aspects of stent retriever use and its relation to reperfusion in ESCAPE NA1 trial. Methods: ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter, international randomized trial assessing the efficacy of nerinetide in ischemic stroke patients who underwent EVT within 12h from onset. The following stent retriever characteristics were evaluated: stent retriever length, diameter, thrombus position in relation to stent retriever - proximal, middle or distal third, bypass effect during stent retriever deployment (Figure 1), and stent retriever placement in the anterior or posterior MCA trunk (in M1 occlusions). Primary outcome was reperfusion grade and the unit of analysis was stent retriever attempt. Results: Data from 1062 patients were evaluated. Angiographic data for up to three passes were analyzed as only 8.9% of patients required >3 passes. Stent retriever was used in 1241 passes in 808 patients. The occlusion sites were terminal ICA (14.9%), M1 MCA (58.7%), M2 MCA (23.7%), other (2.1%). A successful reperfusion attempt (mTICI 2b-3) was associated with the presence of bypass effect (OR 1.7; 95%CI 1.07-2.72), and positioning of stent retriever so the thrombus was in the proximal and middle third of stent retriever (OR 2.06; 95%CI 1.24-3.40 and OR 1.92; 95%CI 1.16-3.15, respectively). The position of the thrombus in the middle third of stent retriever was a significant predictor of bypass effect (OR 2.71; 95%CI 1.61-4.58). Stent retriever length, diameter, or choice of MCA trunk did not predict successful attempts, Table 1. Conclusion: Bypass effect and positioning of stent retriever so the thrombus was in proximal 2/3rds are predictors of successful reperfusion attempts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".