Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Therapy for Acute Large Vessel Occlusion with Large Ischemic Core (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT): Rationale and Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular therapy is strongly recommended for acute cerebral large vessel occlusion (LVO) with an Alberta stroke program early computed tomography score (ASPECTS) ≥6 due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery or M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery. However, the effect of endovascular therapy for patients with a large ischemic core with an ASPECTS ≤5 (0-5) was not established. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial was conducted to investigate the superiority of endovascular therapy over medical therapy without endovascular therapy for a large ischemic core with ASPECTS (3-5). Patients were randomly assigned to receive endovascular therapy or without endovascular therapy at a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was a moderate functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS; scores ranging from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) ≤3 after 90 days. The secondary outcomes were defined as ordinal mRS, good functional outcome (mRS ≤2), excellent functional outcome (mRS ≤1), mRS shift analysis after 90 days, and early improvement of neurological findings at 48 hours. A total sample size of 200 was estimated to provide a power of 0.9 with a two-sided alpha of 0.05, for the primary outcome, considering a 15% dropout rate. This randomized clinical trial reported the applicability of endovascular therapy in patients with acute cerebral LVO with a large ischemic core.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.007 |
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".