Endovascular therapy in acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusive patients with a large infarct core (ANGEL-ASPECT): protocol of a multicentre randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefit of stroke thrombectomy for large infarct core still lacks robust randomised controlled studies. AIM: To demonstrate the design of a clinical trial on endovascular therapy for acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (LVO) patients with large infarct core volume. DESIGN: ANGEL-ASPECT is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded End-point trial to evaluate whether best medical management (BMM) combined with endovascular therapy improves neurological functional outcomes as compared with BMM alone in acute LVO patients with Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 3-5 on non-contrast CT or infarct core volume range of 70-100 mL (defined as rCBF <30% on CT perfusion or ADC <620 on MRI) up to 24 hours from symptom onset or last seen well. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy outcome is 90 (±7) days modified Rankin Scale. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within 48 hours from randomisation is the primary safety outcome. DISCUSSION: The ANGEL-ASPECT trial will screen patients with large infarct core (ASPECTS 3-5 or 70-100 mL) through image evaluation criteria within 24 hours and explore the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy compared with BMM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".