Multidimensional Outcomes of IV Thrombolysis in Minor Ischemic Stroke: Motor, Psychocognitive, and Dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The presence of mild deficit is the most common reason for nonuse of intravenous alteplase in ischemic stroke. We analyzed within a national prospective cohort on whether patients with minor stroke can benefit from intravenous alteplase. Methods: This observational study included patients with acute ischemic stroke with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score 0 to 5 at admission. The short-term outcomes at discharge and 3-month were analyzed including the modified Rankin Scale score, gait speed, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7 and Stroke Impact Scale-16. Multivariate regression models were performed to evaluate the association between intravenous thrombolysis and clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 1876 consecutive patients were included in the current analyses with 102 patients (5.4%) received alteplase and 1774 patients (94.5%) were in non-alteplase group. We found that 10.9% patients presented unfavorable functional outcome with a mRS ≥ 2 at 3-month. Patients with alteplase treatment had a more favorable outcome in SIS-16 at discharge (OR, 5.45; 95% CI, 2.22-8.68) and 3-month after stroke (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.17-4.50). There was an association of alteplase with better gait speed in the restricted sample of age >60 (OR,0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.25), while an unfavorable effect was found in anxiety (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.23, 0.91-3.55) and depression (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.17-2.91) in female. Conclusion: Alteplase showed a suggestive benefit in function and motor outcomes in patients with low NIHSS score of 0-5. Meanwhile, female seemed more inclined to post-stroke emotional problems after alteplase treatment, which should be further explored in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".