Influence of recent direct-to-EVT trials on practical decision-making for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that eligible acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients receive intravenous alteplase (IVT) prior to endovascular treatment (EVT). Six randomized controlled trials recently sought to determine the risks of administering IVT prior to EVT, five of which have been published/presented. It is unclear whether and how the results of these trials will change guidelines. With the DEBATE survey, we assessed the influence of the recent trials on physicians' IVT treatment strategies in the setting of EVT for large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. METHODS: Participants were provided with 15 direct-to-mothership case-scenarios of LVO stroke patients and asked whether they would treat with IVT + EVT or EVT alone, a) before publication/presentation of the direct-to-EVT trials, and b) now (knowing the trial results). Logistic regression clustered by respondent was performed to assess factors influencing the decision to adopt an EVT-alone paradigm after publication/presentation of the trial results. RESULTS: 289 participants from 37 countries provided 4335 responses, of which 13.5% (584/4335) changed from an IVT + EVT strategy to EVT alone after knowing the trial results. Very few switched from EVT alone to IVT + EVT (8/4335, 0.18%). Scenarios involving a long thrombus (RR 1.88, 95%CI:1.56-2.26), cerebral micro-hemorrhages (RR 1.78, 95%CI:1.43-2.23), and an expected short time to recanalization (RR 1.46 95%CI:1.19-1.78) had the highest chance of participants switching to an EVT-only strategy. CONCLUSION: In light of the recent direct-to-EVT trials, a sizeable proportion of stroke physicians appears to be rethinking IVT treatment strategies of EVT-eligible mothership patients with AIS due to LVO in specific situations.
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 | 0.225 | 0.556 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".