Abstract 1122‐000201: Is Neutrophilia a Risk Factor for Fast Stroke Progression in Large Vessel Occlusion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Rapid stroke progressors with large vessel occlusion (LVO) have a worse prognosis than their time‐matched cohorts receiving IV thrombolytics and/or mechanical thrombectomy. Our objective was to evaluate the association of neutrophilia with rapid stroke progression. Methods : Initial white blood cell (WBC) and absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) were collected for subjects presenting with acute ischemic stroke secondary to LVO who received IV thrombolytics and/or mechanical thrombectomy within 4.5 and 6 hours, respectively. Rapid stroke progression was determined by Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) on initial CT head. Baseline and discharge NIHSS, age, and follow up mRS were also compared to presenting WBC and ANC. Spearman’s rho was used for correlation. Social Science Statistics was used for data analysis. Results : From October 2020 to April 2021, the association between neurophilia and stroke progression was evaluated in 19 subjects receiving tenecteplase (n = 16; 6 females; age, 63.25 95% CI [54.9207, 71.5793]) and alteplase (n = 4; 2 females; mean age 59, 95% CI [38.13, 79.87]) for LVO causing disabling neurological deficits. Mechanical thrombectomy was attempted in all subjects. The association between higher ANC and lower ASPECTS score reached statistical significance (rs = ‐0.49255, p = 0.04457). There was no significant association of white blood cell (WBC) and ASPECTS score. WBC and ANC were not associated with baseline or discharge NIHSS, age, or follow up mRS. Conclusions : Rapid stroke progression as measured by presenting ASPECTS score may be associated with neutrophilia. Larger prospective clinical trials are needed to validate our results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".