Efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke patients with pre-morbid disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with pre-morbid disability have been generally excluded from randomized controlled trials of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. However, stroke physicians commonly encounter such patients in practice, and face challenging treatment decisions when caring for them. AREAS COVERED: We review the literature on the safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in patients with pre-morbid disability. Recent clinical-epidemiological studies have highlighted the adverse outcomes that come with each increment of additional post-stroke disability in these patients. Several observational studies - both case series and registry-based studies - have helped demonstrate the comparable safety of thrombectomy in patients with pre-morbid disability as in those without, complementing similar data on thrombolysis. These data also suggest similar rates of successful recanalization, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and return to pre-stroke level of disability when treated with mechanical thrombectomy, although they have higher mortality. EXPERT OPINION: In the absence of high-quality evidence, we recommend pursuing shared decision-making with patients or family members and being upfront about the uncertain evidence. Available observational data underline the potential for a substantial proportion of these patients to return to their pre-morbid state, do not indicate a greater rate of treatment-related complications, and do not support routinely excluding these patients from thrombectomy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".