MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367018981 · doi:10.1161/svin.03.suppl_1.lba1

Abstract Number: LBA1 Endovascular Thrombectomy vs Best Medical Therapy for Late Presentation Ischaemic Stroke Selected using Non‐Contrast CT

2023· article· en· W4367018981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Permesh Singh Dhillon, Waleed Butt, Tudor G. Jovin, Anna Podlasek, Norman McConachie, Robert Lenthall, Sujit Nair, Luqman Malik, Kailash Krishnan, Iacopo Chiavacci, Farhan Mehedi, Timothy Hong, Harriwin Selva, Robert A. Dineen, Timothy J. England

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)Modified Rankin ScalePerfusion scanningPenumbraOcclusionRadiologyEndovascular treatmentPerfusionInternal medicineCardiologyIschemic strokeIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) beyond 6 hours from acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) onset for patients with proximal large vessel occlusion (LVO) selected without CT perfusion or MR imaging is undetermined in routine clinical practice. Methods In this single centre study, we identified consecutive AIS patients with an ICA or M1 MCA segment occlusion who were eligible for EVT based on non‐contrast CT/CT angiography (without CT perfusion or MR imaging) using an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of ≥ 6, and an NIHSS score of≥ 6, presenting beyond 6 hours from stroke onset, between January 2018 and March 2022. During the study period, EVT capacity limitations meant EVT‐eligible patients presenting out of regular working hours (between 18.00 and 08.00 on weekdays) or on weekends, consistently received best medical management (BMM). This systemic unavailability of EVT, allows a comparison of EVT and BMM in patients who meet the same inclusion criteria, in which selection based on physician‐related bias is significantly reduced. Functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) and mortality at 90 days were compared between patients receiving EVT or BMM following multivariable adjustment for age, sex, baseline stroke severity, ASPECTS, onset‐to‐neuroimaging time, IV thrombolysis, and clot location.Pre‐specified subgroup analyses were performed. Results Among 4802 AIS patients, 150 patients (3.1%) presenting beyond 6‐hours of onset were eligible for EVT: 74 (49%) treated with EVT and 76 (51%) with BMM. Compared to the BMM group, patients treated with EVT had significantly improved functional outcome (mRS) (adjusted common OR = 2.23, 95%CI 1.18‐4.22, p = 0.013), and higher rates of functional independence (mRS≤2; 39.2.% vs 9.2%; aOR = 4.73, 95%CI 1.64‐13.63, p = 0.004). No significant difference was observed between the EVT and BMM groups in the sICH (5.4% vs 2.6%, p = 0.94) or mortality (20.2% vs 47.3%, p = 0.16) rates, respectively. EVT remained effective within the 6–12 hour and >12 hour time window subgroups. No significant treatment interaction was observed in all subgroups. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, of the 3.1% of patients in our AIS population presenting after 6 hours from stroke onset who were deemed eligible for EVT by NCCT/CTA alone, those treated with EVT achieved significantly improved functional outcome, compared to patients treated with BMM only. No significant differences were noted between the two groups with respect to sICH and mortality. While confirmatory randomised trials are awaited, these findings suggest that EVT is effective and safe when performed in AIS patients selected without CTP or MRI beyond 6 hours from stroke onset.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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