Endovascular Therapy for Acute Stroke with a Large Ischemic Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke is generally avoided when the infarction is large, but the effect of endovascular therapy with medical care as compared with medical care alone for large strokes has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial in Japan involving patients with occlusion of large cerebral vessels and sizable strokes on imaging, as indicated by an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score (ASPECTS) value of 3 to 5 (on a scale from 0 to 10, with lower values indicating larger infarction). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive endovascular therapy with medical care or medical care alone within 6 hours after they were last known to be well or within 24 hours if there was no early change on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images. Alteplase (0.6 mg per kilogram of body weight) was used when appropriate in both groups. The primary outcome was a modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 3 (on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included a shift across the range of modified Rankin scale scores toward a better outcome at 90 days and an improvement of at least 8 points in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficit) at 48 hours. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients underwent randomization; 101 patients were assigned to the endovascular-therapy group and 102 to the medical-care group. Approximately 27% of patients in each group received alteplase. The percentage of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 3 at 90 days was 31.0% in the endovascular-therapy group and 12.7% in the medical-care group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 4.37; P = 0.002). The ordinal shift across the range of modified Rankin scale scores generally favored endovascular therapy. An improvement of at least 8 points on the NIHSS score at 48 hours was observed in 31.0% of the patients in the endovascular-therapy group and 8.8% of those in the medical-care group (relative risk, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.76 to 7.00), and any intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 58.0% and 31.4%, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial conducted in Japan, patients with large cerebral infarctions had better functional outcomes with endovascular therapy than with medical care alone but had more intracranial hemorrhages. (Funded by Mihara Cerebrovascular Disorder Research Promotion Fund and the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy; RESCUE-Japan LIMIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03702413.).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".