MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220867759 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a7459

A Meta-analysis of Combined Aspiration Catheter and Stent Retriever versus Stent Retriever Alone for Large-Vessel Occlusion Ischemic Stroke

2022· article· en· W4220867759 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverOcclusionCatheterStentStroke (engine)Complication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>BACKGROUND:</h3> The efficacy of combined aspiration catheter and stent retriever compared with stent retriever alone for the treatment of large-vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke is unclear. <h3>PURPOSE:</h3> Our aim was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on several metrics of efficacy comparing aspiration catheter and stent retriever with stent retriever alone. <h3>DATA SOURCES:</h3> MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials and case-control and cohort studies were included. <h3>STUDY SELECTION:</h3> Ten comparative studies were included detailing a combined 1495 patients with aspiration catheter and stent retriever and 1864 with stent retrievers alone. <h3>DATA ANALYSIS:</h3> Data on first pass effect (TICI 2b/2c/3 after first pass), final successful reperfusion (modified TICI ≥2b), and 90-day functional independence (mRS ≤ 2) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. <h3>DATA SYNTHESIS:</h3> There was a pooled composite first pass effect of 40.8% (611/1495) versus 32.6% (608/1864) for aspiration catheter and stent retriever and stent retriever alone, respectively (<i>P </i>&lt; .0001). Similarly, on a meta-analysis, aspiration catheter and stent retriever were associated with a higher first pass effect compared with stent retriever alone (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.20–2.21; <i>P</i> = .002; I<sup>2</sup> = 72%). There was no significant difference in composite rates of successful reperfusion between aspiration catheter and stent retriever (72.8%, 867/1190) and stent retriever alone (70.8%, 931/1314) (<i>P</i> = .27) or on meta-analysis (OR = 1.31; CI, 0.81–2.12; <i>P</i> = .27; I<sup>2</sup> = 82%). No difference was found between aspiration catheter and stent retriever and stent retriever alone on 90-day functional independence (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36; <i>P</i> = .88; I<sup>2</sup> = 40%). <h3>LIMITATIONS:</h3> This study is limited by high interstudy heterogeneity. <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> On meta-analysis, aspiration catheter and stent retriever are associated with a superior first pass effect compared with stent retriever alone, but they are not associated with statistically different final reperfusion or functional independence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it