MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388048113 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45232-x

Predictors of functional outcome after thrombectomy for M2 occlusions: a large scale experience from clinical practice

2023· article· en· W4388048113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helge Kniep, Lukas Meyer, Gabriel Broocks, Matthias Bechstein, Helena Guerreiro, Laurens Winkelmeier, Caspar Brekenfeld, Fabian Flottmann, Milani Deb‐Chatterji, Anna Alegiani, Uta Hanning, Götz Thomalla, Jens Fiehler, Susanne Gellißen, Joachim Röther, Bernd Eckert, Michael Braun, Gerhard F. Hamann, Eberhard Siebert, Christian H. Nolte, Sarah Zweynert, Georg Böhner, Jörg Berrouschot, Albrecht Bormann, Christoffer Kraemer, Hannes Leischner, Jörg Hattingen, Martina Petersen, Florian Stögbauer, Silke Wunderlich, Alexander Ludolph, Karl‐Heinz Henn, Christian Gerloff, Maximilian Schell, Arno Reich, Omid Nikoubashman, Franziska Dorn, Gabor C. Petzold, Jan Liman, Jan Hendrik Schäfer, Fee Keil, Klaus Gröschel, Timo Uphaus, Peter D. Schellinger, Jan Borggrefe, Steffen Tiedt, Lars Kellert, Christoph Trumm, Ulrike Ernemann, Sven Poli, Christian Riedel, Marielle Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRWTH Aachen UniversityUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleThrombolysisOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalStroke (engine)Logistic regressionIntracerebral hemorrhageIschemic strokeSurgeryCardiologyIschemiaMyocardial infarctionSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke with medium vessel occlusions is still a matter of debate. We sought to identify factors associated with clinical outcome after MT for M2-occlusions based on data from the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET). All patients prospectively enrolled in the GSR-ET from 05/2015 to 12/2021 were analyzed (NCT03356392). Inclusion criteria were primary M2-occlusions and availability of relevant clinical data. Factors associated with excellent/good outcome (modified Rankin scale mRS 0-1/0-2), poor outcome/death (mRS 5-6) and mRS-increase pre-stroke to day 90 were determined in multivariable logistic regression. 1348 patients were included. 1128(84%) had successful recanalization, 595(44%) achieved good outcome, 402 (30%) had poor outcome. Successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR] 4.27 [95% confidence interval 3.12-5.91], p < 0.001), higher Alberta stroke program early CT score (OR 1.25 [1.18-1.32], p < 0.001) and i.v. thrombolysis (OR 1.28 [1.07-1.54], p < 0.01) increased probability of good outcome, while age (OR 0.95 [0.94-0.95], p < 0.001), higher pre-stroke-mRS (OR 0.36 [0.31-0.40], p < 0.001), higher baseline NIHSS (OR 0.89 [0.88-0.91], p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 0.52 [0.42-0.64], p < 0.001), higher number of passes (OR 0.75 [0.70-0.80], p < 0.001) and intracranial hemorrhage (OR 0.26 [0.14-0.46], p < 0.001) decreased the probability of good outcome. Additional predictors of mRS-increase pre-stroke to 90d were dissections, perforations (OR 1.59 [1.11-2.29], p < 0.05) and clot migration, embolization (OR 1.67 [1.21-2.30], p < 0.01). Corresponding to large-vessel-occlusions, younger age, low pre-stroke-mRS, low severity of acute clinical disability, i.v. thrombolysis and successful recanalization were associated with good outcome while diabetes and higher number of passes decreased probability of good outcome after MT in M2 occlusions. Treatment related complications increased probability of mRS increase pre-stroke to 90d.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→