No Sex Differences in Mechanical Thrombectomy Time Metrics and Outcomes in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Numerous studies have shown longer pre-hospital and in-hospital workflow times and poorer outcomes in women after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in general and after endovascular treatment (EVT) in particular. We investigated sex differences in acute stroke care of EVT patients over 5 years in a comprehensive Canadian provincial registry. METHODS: Clinical data of all AIS patients who underwent EVT between January 2017 and December 2022 in the province of Saskatchewan were captured in the Canadian OPTIMISE registry and supplemented with patient data from administrative data sources. Patient baseline characteristics, transport time metrics, and technical EVT outcomes between female and male EVT patients were compared. RESULTS: Three-hundred-three patients underwent EVT between 2017 and 2022: 144 (47.5%) women and 159 (52.5%) men. Women were significantly older (median age 77.5 [interquartile range: 66-85] vs.71 [59-78], p < 0.001), while men had more intracranial internal carotid artery occlusions (48/159 [30.2%] vs. 26/142 [18.3%], p = 0.03). Last-known-well to comprehensive stroke center (CSC)-arrival time (median 232 min [interquartile range 90-432] in women vs. 230 min [90-352] in men), CSC-arrival-to-reperfusion time (median 108 min [88-149] in women vs. 102 min [77-141] in men), reperfusion status (successful reperfusion 106/142 [74.7%] in women vs. 117/158 [74.1%] in men) as well as modified Rankin score at 90 days did not differ significantly. This held true after adjusting for baseline variables in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: While women undergoing EVT in the province of Saskatchewan were on average older than men, they were treated just as fast and achieved similar technical and clinical outcomes compared to men.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".