Association between blood pressure and endovascular treatment outcomes differs by baseline perfusion and reperfusion status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We hypothesized that the association between BP and endovascular treatment (EVT) outcomes would differ by baseline perfusion and recanalization status. We identified 388 ICA or M1 occlusion patients who underwent EVT ≤ 24 h from onset with successful recanalization (TICI ≥ 2b). BP was measured at 5-min intervals from arrival and during the procedure. Systolic BPs (SBP) were summarized as dropmax (the maximal decrease over two consecutive measurements), incmax (the maximal increase), mean, coefficient of variation (cv), and standard deviation. Adequate baseline perfusion was defined as hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) ≤ 0.5; infarct proportion as the volume ratio of final infarcts within the Tmax > 6 s region. In the adequate perfusion group, infarct proportion was closely associated with SBPdropmax (β ± SE (P-value); 1.22 ± 0.48, (< 0.01)), SBPincmax (1.12 ± 0.33, (< 0.01)), SBPcv (0.61 ± 0.15 (< 0.01)), SBPsd (0.66 ± 0.08 (< 0.01)), and SBPmean (0.71 ± 0.37 (0.053) before recanalization. The associations remained significant only in SBPdropmax, SBPincmax, and SBPmean after recanalization. SBPincmax, SBPcv and SBPsd showed significant associations with modified Rankin Scale score at 3 months in the pre-recanalization period. In the poor perfusion group, none of the SBP indices was associated with any stroke outcomes regardless of recanalization status. BP may show differential associations with stroke outcomes by the recanalization and baseline perfusion status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".