Mechanical Thrombectomy for Large Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with large ischemic core infarct and large vessel occlusion (LVO). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EVT vs medical management (MM) using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to obtain articles related to mechanical thrombectomy for large ischemic core from inception until February 10, 2023. The primary outcome was independent ambulation (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-3). Effect sizes were computed as risk ratio (RR) with random-effect or fixed-effect models. The quality of articles was evaluated through the Cochrane risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023396232). RESULTS: = 0.61). Analysis of the cohort studies showed that EVT improved functional outcomes of patients without an increase in the incidence in sICH. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that in patients with LVO stroke with a large ischemic core, EVT was associated with improved functional outcomes over MM without increasing sICH risk. The results of ongoing RCTs may provide further insight in this patient population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".