Endovascular thrombectomy and intravenous alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion: A clinical practice guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Whether or not use of intravenous alteplase in combination with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) improves outcomes versus EVT alone, for acute stroke patients with large vessel occlusion presenting directly to a comprehensive stroke center, is uncertain. METHODS: Six randomized trials exploring this issue were published, and we synthesized this evidence to inform a rapid guideline based on the Guidelines International Network principles and guided by the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We enlisted an international panel that included 4 patient partners and 1 caregiver, individuals from 6 countries. The panel considered low certainty evidence that EVT alone, relative to EVT with intravenous alteplase, possibly results in a small decrease in the proportion of patients that achieve functional independence and possibly a small increase in mortality. Both effect estimates were downgraded twice due to very serious imprecision. The panel also considered moderate certainty evidence that EVT alone probably decreases symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, versus EVT with alteplase, and combination therapy was more costly than EVT alone. As a result of the low certainty for improved recovery without impairment and mortality for combination therapy versus EVT alone, and moderate certainty for increased harm with combination therapy, the panel made a weak recommendation in favor of EVT alone for stroke patients eligible for both treatments, and initially presenting directly to a comprehensive stroke center that provides both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with this weak recommendation, optimal patient management will likely often include co-treatment with intravenous alteplase, depending on local circumstances and patient presentation.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".