MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367018619 · doi:10.1161/svin.03.suppl_1.171

Abstract Number ‐ 171: Stroke location as predictor of bleeding after EVT for ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation

2023· article· en· W4367018619 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish Kumar, Bruno Ponde, Christine V. Hawkes, Anish Kapadia, Leodante da Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionStroke (engine)Univariate analysisMann–Whitney U testOcclusionIschemic strokeExact testHematomaInternal medicineStepwise regressionUnivariateChi-square testCardiologySurgeryMultivariate analysisMultivariate statisticsIschemiaStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Hemorrhage is a known risk of Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for ischemic stroke . Several predictors of bleeding have been identified. However, stroke location has not yet been evaluated as an independent predictor. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years who underwent EVT for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, at our centre were included. After the exclusion criteria, a total of 344patients were analyzed. The admission CT scans were reviewed by a neuroradiologist to determine the ASPECTS, and classify the involved regions into location groups: only central core, only cortical, and both central and cortical areas. Post EVT images were evaluated to assign the Heidelberg bleeding classification. Statistical analysis was performed in R, version 4.1. For univariate analyses, Fisher’s exact or chi‐square test was used for categorical data. Quantitative data were tested for normality, and the t‐test or Mann‐Whitney test was applied accordingly. All variables in the univariate analyses with p < 0.15 were considered for the stepwise logistic regression models. Results Patients had a median age of 73 years (IQR 20), NIHSS of 16 (IQR 9),ASPECTS of 7 (IQR 3), systolic blood pressure of 146 mmHg (IQR 25), and glycemia of 7 mmol/L (IQR 2). The most frequent occlusion site was M1 (65.7%), and most patients had an mTICI > 2A (89.5%). Bleeding occurred in 182 (52.9%) and intraparenchymal hematoma in 73 (21.2%) patients, with most bleeding only in the central core (65.4%), with the lentiform nucleus involved in 122 (67%) of the bleeds. Thirty‐eight patients died (11%), and 237 had a modified Rankin score > 2 at discharge (68.9%). Stroke location was significant for all types of bleeding (p < 0.001) and intraparenchymal hematoma (p = 0.137) in the univariate analyses. However, after multiple logistic regression, the stroke location was not an independent predictor of any type of bleeding. On the other hand, a lower ASPECTS was a significant predictor of all types of bleeding (p < 0.001; OR 1.347; 95% CI 1.1799 ‐ 1.539) and intraparenchymal hematoma (p = 0.009; OR 1.756; 95% CI 1.152 ‐ 2.677). In addition to ASPECTS, high NIHSS (p = 0.038; OR 1.058; 95% CI 1.003 ‐ 1.115) was a significant predictor of all types of bleeding, while high systolic blood pressure (p = 0.027; OR 1. 037;95% CI 1.004 ‐ 1.071), cardioembolic stroke (p = 0.042; OR 10.408; 95% CI 1.085 ‐ 99.889), and poor collaterals (p = 0.046; OR 5.068; 95% CI 1.029 ‐ 24.951) were significant for intraparenchymal hematoma. Conclusions Stroke location is not an independent predictor of bleeding. However, stroke size, as indicated by the ASPECT, is a predictor of bleeding after EVT. Moreover, some modifiable predictors were not significant because they are already controlled for in the study, but systolic pressure was a significant predictor of intraparenchymal hematoma and shows that more studies are needed to determine the appropriate control levels to reduce the chance of bleeding without compromising cerebral perfusion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207