Abstract WP103: Re-Examining the Exclusion Criterion of Early Recurrent Ischemic Stroke in Intravenous Thrombolysis: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current guidelines for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke preclude the administration of the drug in patients with a history of recent stroke. Objectives: Our meta-analysis aims to determine the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in patients with early recurrent ischemic stroke (within 3 months of initial stroke). Methods: Pubmed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov , and HERDIN were searched for studies comparing the outcomes of acute stroke patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis between those with early recurrent stroke (ERS) and those without. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to evaluate the outcomes in terms of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, mortality and good functional outcomes at 3 months (modified Rankin Score < 2 ) Results: Three observational studies with a total of 48,459 thrombolysed patients (824 with ERS and 47,635 without) were included in the study. There was no significant difference between patients with ERS and those without in terms of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR 1.39, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.75-2.58), mortality (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.60-3.09) and good functional outcomes at 3 months (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.47-1.16). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate excluding patients with ERS from receiving thrombolysis. Further studies to re-examine ERS as an exclusion criterion for receiving thrombolysis are warranted.
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 | 0.064 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.095 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".