MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319826361 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2214403

Trial of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large Ischemic Strokes

2023· article· en· W4319826361 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amrou Sarraj, Ameer E Hassan, Michael Abraham, Santiago Ortega‐Gutiérrez, Scott E. Kasner, Muhammad Shazam Hussain, Michael Chen, Spiros Blackburn, Clark Sitton, Leonid Churilov, Sophia Sundararajan, Yin Hu, Nabeel Herial, Pascal Jabbour, Daniel Gibson, Adam N. Wallace, Juan F. Arenillas, Jenny P. Tsai, Ronald F. Budzik, William J. Hicks, Osman Kozak, Bernard Yan, Dennis Cordato, Nathan Manning, Mark Parsons, Ricardó A. Hanel, Amin N. Aghaebrahim, Teddy Y. Wu, Pere Cardona-Portela, Natàlia Pérez de la Ossa, Joanna D. Schaafsma, Jordi Blasco, Navdeep Sangha, Steven Warach, Chirag D. Gandhi, Timothy Kleinig, Daniel H. Sahlein, Lucas Elijovich, Wondwossen Tekle, Edgar A. Samaniego, Laith Maali, Mohammad A Abdulrazzak, Marios N. Psychogios, Ashfaq Shuaib, Deep Pujara, Faris Shaker, Hannah Johns, Gagan Sharma, Vignan Yogendrakumar, Felix Ng, Mohammad H Rahbar, Chunyan Cai, Philip W. Lavori, Scott Hamilton, Thanh N. Nguyen, Johanna T Fifi, Stephen M. Davis, Lawrence R. Wechsler, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Maarten G. Lansberg, Michael D. Hill, James C. Grotta, Marc Ribó, Bruce Campbell, Gregory W. Albers

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaToronto Western Hospital
FundersStryker
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleConfidence intervalOdds ratioStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialPerfusion scanningMiddle cerebral arteryInternal carotid arteryOcclusionInternal medicineIschemic strokePerfusionIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Trials of the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic strokes have been carried out in limited populations. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, open-label, adaptive, international trial involving patients with stroke due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the first segment of the middle cerebral artery to assess endovascular thrombectomy within 24 hours after onset. Patients had a large ischemic-core volume, defined as an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score of 3 to 5 (range, 0 to 10, with lower scores indicating larger infarction) or a core volume of at least 50 ml on computed tomography perfusion or diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to endovascular thrombectomy plus medical care or to medical care alone. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin scale score at 90 days (range, 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). Functional independence was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for efficacy; 178 patients had been assigned to the thrombectomy group and 174 to the medical-care group. The generalized odds ratio for a shift in the distribution of modified Rankin scale scores toward better outcomes in favor of thrombectomy was 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 1.89; P<0.001). A total of 20% of the patients in the thrombectomy group and 7% in the medical-care group had functional independence (relative risk, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.60 to 5.51). Mortality was similar in the two groups. In the thrombectomy group, arterial access-site complications occurred in 5 patients, dissection in 10, cerebral-vessel perforation in 7, and transient vasospasm in 11. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 1 patient in the thrombectomy group and in 2 in the medical-care group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with large ischemic strokes, endovascular thrombectomy resulted in better functional outcomes than medical care but was associated with vascular complications. Cerebral hemorrhages were infrequent in both groups. (Funded by Stryker Neurovascular; SELECT2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03876457.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations868
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207