MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380681243 · doi:10.1161/svin.122.000760

Thrombolysis in Patients With Large‐Vessel Occlusion Directly Admitted or Transferred to a Thrombectomy Center: A Population‐Based Study

2023· article· en· W4380681243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Álvaro García‐Tornel, Prudencio Lozano, Marta Rubiera, Manuel Requena, Marta Olivé‐Gadea, Marián Muchada, Jesús Juega, Federica Rizzo, Noelia Rodriguez‐Villatoro, Jorge Pagola, David Rodríguez‐Luna, Sandra Boned, Laura Dorado, Xavier Jiménez, Angels Soto, Pere Cardona, Xabier Urra, Ángel Chamorro, Francisco Purroy, Mikel Terceño, Yolanda Silva, Alan Flores, Xavier Ustrell, Josep Zaragoza, Jaume Roquer, Jerzy Kuprinski, Dolores Cocho, Ernest Palomeras, Manuel Gómez‐Choco, David Cánovas, Joan Martí‐Fábregas, Natàlia Mas, Sònia Abilleira, Carlos A. Molina, Marc Ribó, Natàlia Pérez de la Ossa

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Our goal is to evaluate whether the administration of thrombolytic treatment has varying effects on clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with large‐vessel occlusion stroke, based on the type of stroke center where the treatment was given (thrombectomy‐capable center versus local stroke center). Methods We included patients with an acute ischemic large‐vessel occlusion stroke who were directly admitted to thrombectomy‐capable centers and treated with endovascular thrombectomy, or were transferred from local stroke centers as thrombectomy candidates, in Catalonia, Spain, between 2017 and 2021. The primary outcome was the shift analysis on the modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included death at 90 days and the rate of parenchymal hemorrhage and successful reperfusion. Inverse‐probability weighting clustered at the type of stroke center was used to estimate the effects. Results The analysis included 2268 patients directly admitted to thrombectomy‐capable centers, of whom 975 (49%) were treated with thrombolysis, and 938 patients transferred from local stroke centers, of whom 580 (66%) were treated with thrombolysis and 616 (67%) were treated with thrombectomy. Mean age was 72 (SD ±13) years, median National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score was 17 (interquartile range, 12–21), and 1363 patients were women (48%). Patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis were younger, had shorter time from onset to first image, higher Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score, and lower rates of wake‐up stroke, atrial fibrillation, and anticoagulation intake. Patients treated with thrombolysis had better functional outcome at 90 days, with no difference between patients directly admitted to thrombectomy‐capable centers (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR], 1.50 [95% CI, 1.24–1.81]) and patients transferred from local stroke centers (acOR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.04–2.01]). Patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis had lower death rate, higher rate of parenchymal hematoma, and similar rate of successful reperfusion, with no difference according to type of center ( P interaction >0.1). Conclusion Administration of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with a large‐vessel stroke with intention of thrombectomy was associated with lower degrees of disability, lower death rate, and higher rates of parenchymal hematoma both in thrombectomy‐capable centers and in local stroke centers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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