Effect of baseline infarct size on endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in stroke patients: A subgroup analysis of a randomized trial (DIRECT‐MT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: DIRECT-MT showed that endovascular thrombectomy was noninferior to thrombectomy preceded by intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke. In this post hoc analysis, we examined whether infarct size modified the effect of alteplase. METHODS: All patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) grades were included. The primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for better functional outcome based on the mRS for thrombectomy alone versus combination therapy. An interaction term was entered to test for an interaction with baseline ASPECTS subgroups: 0-4 versus 5-7 versus 8-10. RESULTS: Of 649 patients, 323 (49.8%) were in the thrombectomy-alone group and 326 (50.2%) in the combination-therapy group. There was no significant treatment-by-trichotomized ASPECTS interaction with alteplase prior to endovascular treatment for the primary endpoint of ordinal mRS (p-value interaction term relative to ASPECTS 8-10: ASPECTS 0-4, p = 0.386; ASPECTS 5-7, p = 0.936). Adjusted common ORs for improvement in the 90-day mRS with thrombectomy alone compared with combination therapy were 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 0.72-5.46) for ASPECTS 0-4, 1.07 (0.62-1.86) for ASPECTS 5-7, and 1.03 (0.74-1.45) for ASPECTS 8-10. There was no significant difference in the safety outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline infarct size may not modify the effect of alteplase prior to endovascular thrombectomy with regard to favorable functional outcomes and adverse events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".