Replacing Alteplase with Tenecteplase: Is the Time Ripe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke has predominantly been with alteplase for over a quarter of a century. In recent years, with trials showing evidence of higher rates of successful reperfusion, similar safety profile and efficacy of tenecteplase (TNK) as compared to alteplase, TNK has now emerged as another potential choice for thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke. In this review, we will focus on these recent advances, aiming: (1) to provide a brief overview of thrombolysis in stroke; (2) to provide comparisons between alteplase and TNK for clinical, imaging, and safety outcomes; (3) to focus on key subgroups of interest to understand if there is an advantage of using TNK over alteplase or vice-versa, to review available evidence on role of TNK in intra-arterial thrombolysis, as bridging therapy and in mobile stroke units; and (4) to summarize what to expect in the near future from recently completed trials and propose areas for future research on this evolving topic. We present compelling data from several trials regarding the safety and efficacy of TNK in acute ischemic stroke along with completed yet unpublished trials that will help provide insight into these unanswered questions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".