Effectiveness and safety of endovascular thrombectomy for large versus medium vessel occlusions: a single-center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for medium vessel occlusions (MeVO) in the anterior intracranial circulation for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has yet to be definitively established. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing EVT for large vessel occlusion (LVO) versus those with MeVO. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study, using an intention to treat design, compared the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score between 43 patients with MeVO and 199 with LVO in the anterior intracranial circulation. Secondary outcome measures included vessel recanalization using the Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score, procedural complications, post-EVT intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and infarct size. RESULTS: The rate of good functional outcome (90-day mRS 0-2) was higher in patients with LVO than in those with MeVO (32.9% vs 27%), but this was not statistically significant (p=0.19). The rate of EVT procedural complications was also not significantly different between the groups (p=0.10), nor was the rate of ICH (p=0.30). There was also no significant difference in TICI scores between groups (p=0.12). Infarct size was larger in the LVO group (p<0.01). Multivariate analysis showed older age, not receiving recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA), and larger infarct size were independent predictors of poor functional outcome at 90 days. CONCLUSION: The 90-day mRS and rate of periprocedural complications were not significantly different between patients treated for LVO and those treated for MeVO with EVT. Older age, not receiving r-tPA, and larger infarct size were independent predictors of poor outcome at 90 days.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".