Abstract WP8: Procedural Times and First Pass Tici-3 With Direct Aspiration vs Retrievable Stents vs for Treatment of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Randomized trials of direct aspiration (ADAPT) vs retrievable stent (RS) did not show a difference in 90-day outcomes. We searched existing literature for differences in reperfusion times and success between the two techniques. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify relevant articles in electronic databases and references. Studies comparing ADAPT vs RS and reporting the procedural details and outcomes were included. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to compare the procedural duration and outcomes. Results: We screened 8578 abstracts and 864 full-text articles. Analysis of 16 studies (2182 ADAPT and 2786 RS patients) reveals no difference in procedural time (D=-5.37 min shorter with ADAPT, 95% CI -19.78 to 9.04; p=0.46), successful reperfusion rate defined as TICI 2b or higher (OR=1.38 in favour of RS, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.96; p=0.07), first pass TICI3 rates (OR=1.29 in favour of RS, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.82; p=0.14) and number of device passes (OR=0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; p=0.79). Good functional outcome was also similar (OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02; p=0.08), as mortality (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.2; p=0.28), and ICH (RR=1.23, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; p=0.06) Conclusions: Existing endovascular techniques appear equally efficient in current literature. Fig. 1. OR forest plot of for successful reperfusion. Fig. 2. Mean D forest plot for groin to reperfusion time.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".