B.3 Sex differences in thrombolysis and thrombectomy workflow: the INTERRSeCT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Women are reported to have worse outcomes than men following ischemic stroke despite similar treatment effects for thrombolysis and endovascular treatment. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of patients with acute ischemic stroke and intracranial occlusion enrolled in INTERRSeCT, an international prospective cohort study. We compared workflow times, reperfusion therapy choices, and 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores. Results: We included 575 patients, mean age 70.2 years (SD: 13.1) and 48.5% female. There were no significant sex differences in onset-to-CT (males: 115 minutes [IQR: 72-171], females: 114 minutes [IQR: 75-196] ) or CT-to-thrombolysis time (males: 24 minutes [IQR: 17-32], females: 23 minutes [IQR: 18-36]). However, female participants had a 12-minute faster CT-to-groin-puncture time, p=0.001. Reperfusion therapies did not significantly differ by sex. Reperfusion therapies included thrombolysis alone (males: 46%, females: 49%), EVT alone (males: 34%, females: 34%), thrombolysis plus EVT (males: 8%, females 9%) and conservative management (males: 12%, females: 8%). Median 90-day mRS was 2 (IQR: 1-4) in both males and females, p=0.1. Conclusions: In the INTERRSeCT cohort, rates of reperfusion therapy, workflow times and 90-day outcomes were similar between sexes, suggesting that women are not subject to any poorer performance in key quality indicators for reperfusion treatment for acute stroke.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".