SWIFT DIRECT: Solitaire™ With the Intention For Thrombectomy Plus Intravenous t-PA Versus DIRECT Solitaire™ Stent-retriever Thrombectomy in Acute Anterior Circulation Stroke: Methodology of a randomized, controlled, multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Whether treatment with intravenous alteplase prior to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion is beneficial remains unclear. AIM: To determine whether patients experiencing acute ischemic stroke due to occlusion of the intracranial internal carotid artery or the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery who are referred to an endovascular stroke center and who are candidates for intravenous alteplase will have non-inferior functional outcome at 90 days when treated with MT alone (direct MT) with stent retrievers compared to patients treated with combined intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase plus MT (IVT + MT) with stent retrievers. SAMPLE SIZE: To randomize 404 patients 1:1 to direct MT or combined IVT+MT. METHODS AND DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) trial utilizing an adaptive statistical design. OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy endpoint is functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) at 90 days. Secondary clinical efficacy outcomes include change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score from baseline to day 1 and health-related quality of life at 90 days. Secondary technical efficacy outcomes include successful reperfusion prior to start of MT and time from randomization to successful reperfusion. Safety outcomes include all serious adverse events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality up to 90 days. DISCUSSION: SWIFT DIRECT will inform physicians whether direct MT in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion is equally or more efficacious than combined treatment with intravenous alteplase and MT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192332.
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 | 0.033 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".