MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385663649 · doi:10.1177/15910199231193925

2b Or 2c-3? A meta-analysis of first pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b vs multiple pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2c-3 following mechanical thrombectomy for stroke

2023· article· en· W4385663649 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Kobeissi, Sherief Ghozy, Melika Amoukhteh, Santhosh Arul, Cem Bilgin, Yiğit Can Şenol, Atakan Orscelik, Mohamed Elfil, Adam A. Dmytriw, Ramanathan Kadirvel, David F. Kallmes

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neuroradiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisMedicineStroke (engine)Cerebral infarctionCardiologyMeta-analysisIschemic strokeInfarctionInternal medicineIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Procedural success following mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke is assessed using the thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether outcomes differed between first pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b and multiple pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2c-3. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included original studies in which outcomes were stratified based on first pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b and multiple pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2c-3. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of modified Rankin Scale 0-2. Secondary outcomes of interest were rates of modified Rankin Scale 0-1, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality. We calculated odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results Four studies with 1554 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Rate of modified Rankin Scale 0–2 (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.70–1.18; P -value = 0.49), modified Rankin Scale 0–1 (odds ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval = 0.86–1.71; P -value = 0.27), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.47–3.98; P -value = 0.57), and mortality (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.67–1.25; P -value = 0.56) did not differ between first pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b and multiple pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2c-3. There was no heterogeneity among included studies for modified Rankin Scale 0–2, modified Rankin Scale 0–1, or mortality; however, there was moderate heterogeneity among studies for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage ( I 2 = 53%, P -value = 0.12). Conclusions Clinical and safety outcomes did not differ between first pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b and multiple pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2c-3. Future prospective studies and clinical trials should determine whether first pass thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b is a viable endpoint to thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2c-3.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.054
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.340
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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional NeuroradiologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207