Nomogram model of functional outcome for endovascular treatment in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose The efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute basilar artery occlusion (ABAO) has been confirmed by four randomized clinical trials. Nevertheless, the predictors of a 90-day favorable outcome after EVT have not been elucidated. We attempted to establish a nomogram for the prediction of a 90-day favorable outcome in ABAO patients with EVT. Methods Clinical data of ABAO patients with EVT were obtained from two nationwide clinical trial registries in China. Factors associated with a 90-day favorable outcome were screened by multivariable step-wise regression on the basis of univariable analysis. A nomogram was established to predict 90-day favorable outcome after EVT. Results The proportion of ABAO patients with a favorable outcome was 41.53% (157/378). Seven variables, including baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) <20 [odds ratio (OR): 8.330; P-value < 0.0001], posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT (pc-ASPECT) score ≥7 (OR: 1.948; P-value = 0.0296), Pons-Midbrain Index (PMI) score < 2 (OR: 2.108; P-value = 0.0128), Posterior Circulation Collateral Score (PC-CS) ≥5 (OR: 3.288; P-value < 0.0001), local anesthesia (OR: 0.389; P-value = 0.0017), time from onset to recanalization (OTR) <330 min (OR: 2.594; P-value = 0.0013), and no occurrence of early neurological deterioration (END; OR: 0.039; P-value < 0.0001) were included into the nomogram, with C-index values of 0.8730 and 0.8857 in the training and the internal validation set, respectively. Conclusions The proposed nomogram provided a reliable prognostic scale, which can be employed in clinical settings for the selection and clinical management of ABAO patients. Registration https://www.clinicaltrials.gov , identifier: NCT03370939.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".