MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384626763 · doi:10.1177/17474930231191033

Evaluation of acute mechanical revascularization in large stroke (ASPECTS ⩽5) and large vessel occlusion within 7 h of last-seen-well: The LASTE multicenter, randomized, clinical trial protocol

2023· article· en· W4384626763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent Costalat, Bertrand Lapergue, J‐F. Albucher, Julien Labreuche, Hilde Hénon, Benjamin Gory, Igor Sibon, Grégoire Boulouis, Christophe Cognard, Nasreddine Nouri, Sébastien Richard, Gaultier Marnat, Federico Di Maria, Mariam Annan, Alain Duhamel, Fédérico Cagnazzo, Tudor G. Jovin, Caroline Arquizan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Modified Rankin ScaleRevascularizationOdds ratioMagnetic resonance imagingClinical trialSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicineIschemic strokeMyocardial infarctionIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT), the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) secondary to large vessel occlusion (LVO), is generally not offered to patients with large baseline infarct (core). Recent studies demonstrated MT benefit in patients with anterior circulation stroke and large core (i.e. Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score, ASPECTS 3-5). However, its benefit in patients with the largest core (ASPECTS 0-2) remains unproven. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of MT plus best medical treatment (BMT) and of BMT alone in patients with ASPECTS 0-5 (baseline computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) and anterior circulation LVO within 7 h of last-seen-well. SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATE: To detect with a two-sided test at 5% significance level (80% power) a common odds ratio of 1.65 for 1-point reduction in the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score in the MT + BMT arm versus BMT arm and to anticipate 10% of patients with missing primary endpoint, 450 patients are planned to be included by 36 centers in France, Spain, and the United States. METHODS AND DESIGN: LArge Stroke Therapy Evaluation (LASTE) is an international, multicenter, Prospectively Randomized into two parallel (1:1) arms, Open-label, with Blinded Endpoint (PROBE design) trial. Eligibility criteria are diagnosis of AIS within 6.5 h of last-seen-well (or negative fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) if unknown stroke onset time), ASPECTS 0-5 (ASPECTS 4-5 for ⩾80-year-old patients), and LVO in the anterior circulation (intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) and M1 or M1-M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery (MCA)). STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is the day-90 mRS score distribution (shift analysis) with mRS categories 5 and 6 coalesced into one category. Secondary endpoints include day-180 mRS score, rates of 90-day and 180-day mRS score = 0-2 and 0-3, rate of decompressive craniectomy, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score change, revascularization and infarct volume growth at 24 h, and quality of life at day 90 and 180. Safety outcomes (90-day all-cause mortality, procedural complications, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and early NIHSS score worsening) are recorded. A dynamic balanced randomization (1:1) is used to distribute eligible patients into the experimental arm and control arm, by incorporating the center and these pre-specified factors: baseline ASPECTS (0-3 vs 4-5), age (⩽70 vs >70 years), baseline NIHSS (<20 vs ⩾20), intravenous thrombolysis (no vs yes), admission mode (Drip-and-Ship vs Mothership), occlusion site (intracranial ICA vs MCA-M1 or M1-M2), intravenous fibrinolysis (no vs yes), and last-seen-well to randomization time (0-4.5 vs >4.5-6.5 h). DISCUSSION: The LASTE trial will determine MT efficacy and safety in patients with ASPECTS 0-5 and LVO in the anterior circulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: LASTE Trial NCT03811769.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207