MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385398172 · doi:10.1136/jnis-2023-snis.77

P-005 Predictors for large vessel recanalization before stroke thrombectomy

2023· article· en· W4385398172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huanwen Chen, Marco Colasurdo, C Schrier, Mazin Khalid, M Khunte, Timothy R. Miller, Jacob Cherian, Ajay Malhotra, Dheeraj Gandhi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyThrombolysisAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)AngiographyReceiver operating characteristicRetrospective cohort studyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Large vessel recanalization (LVR) before endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute large vessel ischemic strokes is a poorly understood phenomenon, and better understanding of predictors for LVR is important for optimizing stroke triage and patient selection for bridging thrombolysis. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients presenting to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT treatment were identified from 2018 to 2022. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) use, and LVR before EVT were recorded. Factors independently associated with different rates of LVR were identified, and a prediction model for LVR was constructed. Results 640 patients were identified. 57 (8.9%) patients had LVR before EVT. A minority (36.4%) of LVR patients had significant improvements in NIH stroke scale. Independent predictors for LVR were identified and used to construct the 8-point Recan score: IVT at least 1.5 hours before angiography (3 points), atrial fibrillation (1 point), hyperlipidemia (1 point), and site of vascular occlusion (internal carotid: 0 points, M1: 1 point, M2: 2 points, vertebral/basilar: 3 points). The Recan score had an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95%CI 0.81 to 0.90; p<0.001) for predicting LVR. LVR before EVT occurred in only 1 of 302 patients (0.3%) with low (0-2) Recan scores. Conclusions IVT at least 1.5 hours before angiography, site of vascular occlusion, atrial fibrillation, and hyperlipidemia are independent predictors for LVR. The 8-point Recan score proposed in this study may be a valuable tool for predicting LVR before EVT. Disclosures H. Chen: None. M. Colasurdo: None. C. Schrier: None. M. Khalid: None. M. Khunte: None. T. Miller: None. J. Cherian: None. A. Malhotra: None. D. Gandhi: 1; C; National Institutes of Health, Focused Ultrasound Foundation, MicroVention, University of Calgary, University of Maryland Medical Center.

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)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→