Sex Differences in Functional Outcomes Following Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sex disparities have been reported across many aspects of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care; however, there is a relative paucity of research examining sex differences in outcomes following endovascular treatment (EVT). Some studies report worse functional independence for females following EVT. Few, if any of these studies account for differences in age, baseline function, and comorbidity burden. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess for sex differences in functional outcomes following EVT by comparing 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of males and females while controlling for baseline function and comorbidity burden. METHODS: Baseline demographic and clinical data, and stroke severity were compared for 230 consecutive patients undergoing EVT for AIS between October 2014 and July 2019 at a tertiary stroke centre in Toronto, Canada. Effect of sex on likelihood of functional independence post-EVT was assessed using regression analysis with and without correction for age, baseline mRS, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). RESULTS: < 0.0001), with worse clinical and functional baselines. Unadjusted, males were more functionally independent (90-day mRS < 3) [OR = 1.831, 95%CI 1.082-3.098]. After controlling for age, baseline mRS and CCI, there was no difference between groups [OR 1.21, 95%CI 0.61-2.37]. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that prior findings of sex disparities in function after EVT may be accounted for by differences in age, baseline clinical status and functional independence between males and females when a comprehensive measure of comorbidity burden is utilized.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".