P.056 Basilar artery stenting in hyperacute stroke: a systematic review of published cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Basilar artery stenting is a rescue therapy in the management of hyperacute stroke Published data on efficacy and safety are limited. Methods: A systematic review of published studies was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with ischemic stroke with permanent basilar artery stent placement within 48 hours of onset. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Additional cases from our institution were identified via a local stroke registry. Results: Of 212 screened articles, patient-level data was reported in 35 studies (93 individuals) and six additional patients were included from our registry. Patients (n=99, 63% male; median age 64) most often presented with mid-basilar occlusion (52%) and 76% received treatment within 12 hours of onset. Favorable angiographic results occurred in 67%. The final modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) was 0-3 for 56% of patients; mortality was 29%. Those with complete flow post-procedure were more likely to have a final mRS of 0-3 (p=0.05). Conclusions: In 99 cases of basilar stenting in hyperacute stroke, favourable angiographic and functional outcomes were reported in 67% and 56% of patients, respectively. International multicenter registries are required to establish benefit and identify patient and technical factors that predict favorable outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".