Machine Learning–Based Identification of Target Groups for Thrombectomy in Acute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) improves functional outcome in patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke that do not comply with inclusion criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but that are considered for EVT in clinical practice is uncertain. We aimed to systematically identify patients with LVO stroke underrepresented in RCTs who might benefit from EVT. Following the premises that (i) patients without reperfusion after EVT represent a non-treated control group and (ii) the level of reperfusion affects outcome in patients with benefit from EVT but not in patients without treatment benefit, we systematically assessed the importance of reperfusion level on functional outcome prediction using machine learning in patients with LVO stroke treated with EVT in clinical practice (N = 5235, German-Stroke-Registry) and in patients treated with EVT or best medical management from RCTs (N = 1488, Virtual-International-Stroke-Trials-Archive). The importance of reperfusion level on outcome prediction in an RCT-like real-world cohort equaled the importance of EVT treatment allocation for outcome prediction in RCT data and was higher compared to an unselected real-world population. The importance of reperfusion level was magnified in patient groups underrepresented in RCTs, including patients with lower NIHSS scores (0-10), M2 occlusions, and lower ASPECTS (0-5 and 6-8). Reperfusion level was equally important in patients with vertebrobasilar as with anterior LVO stroke. The importance of reperfusion level for outcome prediction identifies patient target groups who likely benefit from EVT, including vertebrobasilar stroke patients and among patients underrepresented in RCT patients with low NIHSS scores, low ASPECTS, and M2 occlusions.
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 | 0.024 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".