P.065 Comparison in outcomes by sex in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with alteplase versus tenecteplase: a subgroup analysis of AcT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sex differences in treatment response to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) are poorly characterized. We compared sex-disaggregated outcomes in patients receiving IVT for acute ischemic stroke in the Alteplase compared to Tenecteplase (AcT) trial, a Canadian multicentre, randomised trial. Methods: In this post-hoc analysis, the primary outcome was excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-1) at 90 days. Secondary and safety outcomes included return to baseline function, successful reperfusion (eTICI≥2b), death and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Results: Of 1577 patients, there were 755 women and 822 men (median age 77 [68-86]; 70 [59-79]). There were no differences in rates of mRS 0-1 (aRR 0.95 [0.86-1.06]), return to baseline function (aRR 0.94 [0.84-1.06]), reperfusion (aRR 0.98 [0.80-1.19]) and death (aRR 0.91 [0.79-1.18]). There was no effect modification by treatment type on the association between sex and outcomes. The probability of excellent functional outcome decreased with increasing onset-to-needle time. This relation did not vary by sex (pinteraction 0.42). Conclusions: The AcT trial demonstrated comparable functional, safety and angiographic outcomes by sex. This effect did not differ between alteplase and tenecteplase. The pragmatic enrolment and broad national participation in AcT provide reassurance that there do not appear to be sex differences in outcomes amongst Canadians receiving IVT.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".