Endovascular Thrombectomy in Patients With Very Low ASPECTS Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently established the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with large infarct core on baseline neuroimaging. We evaluated the utility of EVT in patients with very large infarct core, defined as Alberta Stroke Program Early CT scores (ASPECTS) of less than 3. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the subgroups of patients with baseline ASPECTS scores 0-2 included in RCTs evaluating the utility of EVT in the setting of a large infarct core. The outcome of interest was the probability of three-month functional improvement assessed with the generalized odds ratios (ORs) of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores between patients receiving EVT and medical management. RESULTS: = 0.73). DISCUSSION: The results from our pooled analysis challenge the exclusion of patients presenting with ASPECTS scores less than 3 from receiving EVT if they are otherwise eligible.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".