MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215235705 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.756062

Intravenous Thrombolysis by Telestroke in the 3- to 4.5-h Time Window

2021· article· en· W3215235705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erik Simon, Matin Forghani, Andrij Abramyuk, Simon Winzer, Claudia Wojciechowski, Lars‐Peder Pallesen, Timo Siepmann, Heinz Reichmann, Volker Puetz, Kristian Barlinn, Jessica Barlinn

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisMedicineWindow (computing)Medical emergencyInternal medicineComputer scienceMyocardial infarctionWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in ischemic stroke can be safely applied in telestroke networks within 3 h from symptom onset, there is a lack of evidence for safety in the expanded 3- to 4. 5-h time window. We assessed the safety and short-term efficacy of IVT in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in the expanded time window delivered through a hub-and-spoke telestroke network. Methods: Observational study of patients with AIS who received IVT at the Stroke Eastern Saxony Telemedical Network between 01/2014 and 12/2015. We compared safety data including symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH; according to European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study II definition) and any intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) between patients admitted to telestroke spoke sites and patients directly admitted to a tertiary stroke center representing the hub of the network. We also assessed short-term efficacy data including favorable functional outcome (i.e., modified Rankin Scale ≤ 2) and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at discharge, hospital discharge disposition, and in-hospital mortality. Results: In total, 152 patients with AIS were treated with IVT in the expanded time window [spoke sites, n = 104 (26.9%); hub site, n = 48 (25.9%)]. Patients treated at spoke sites had less frequently a large vessel occlusion [8/104 (7.7) vs. 20/48 (41.7%); p < 0.0001], a determined stroke etiology (p < 0.0001) and had slightly shorter onset-to-treatment times [210 (45) vs. 228 (58) min; p = 0.02] than patients who presented to the hub site. Both cohorts did not display any further differences in demographics, vascular risk factors, median baseline NIHSS scores, or median baseline Alberta stroke program early CT score (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the frequency of sICH (4.9 vs. 6.3%; p = 0.71) or any ICH (8.7 vs. 16.7%; p = 0.15). Neither there was a difference regarding favorable functional outcome (44.1 vs. 39.6%; p = 0.6) nor median NIHSS [3 (5.5) vs. 2.5 (5.75); p = 0.92] at discharge, hospital discharge disposition (p = 0.28), or in-hospital mortality (9.6 vs. 8.3%; p = 1.0). Multivariable modeling did not reveal an association between telestroke and sICH or favorable functional outcome (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Delivery of IVT in the expanded 3- to 4.5-h time window through a telestroke network appears to be safe with equivalent short-term functional outcomes for spoke-and-hub center admissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207