<scp>Intravenous</scp> Thrombolysis with Tenecteplase for the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with tenecteplase has been associated with better clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with confirmed large vessel occlusions compared to IVT with alteplase. However, the utility of tenecteplase for the treatment of all AIS patients eligible for IVT has not been established. METHODS: We compared the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase versus alteplase in AIS patients by analyzing propensity score matched data from 20 centers participating in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. Patients receiving IVT with tenecteplase were matched with up to 3 patients receiving alteplase from the same center. The primary outcome of interest was the distribution of 3-month functional outcomes. Secondary outcomes included the rates of patients with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH) in the first 24 hours, excellent (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score = 0-1) or good (mRS score = 0-2) functional outcome, and all-cause mortality at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 331 tenecteplase-treated AIS patients were matched to 797 patients treated with alteplase (median age = 70 years, 43.9% women, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score = 11, interquartile range = 6-17). Patients treated with tenecteplase had better 3-month functional outcomes (common odds ratio [OR] = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-2.00) with higher odds of good functional outcome (OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.45-2.77) and a lower likelihood of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.27-0.67) at 3 months, compared to alteplase-treated patients. No difference was found in the likelihood of the 3-month excellent functional outcomes (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.96-1.78) and 24-hour SICH (1.0% vs 1.3%, OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.20-2.64). INTERPRETATION: IVT with tenecteplase was associated with better 3-month clinical outcomes compared to IVT with alteplase in AIS patients, with no increased risk of symptomatic intracranial bleeding. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:349-357.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".