MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389045828 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.4430

Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score, Infarct Core Volume, and Endovascular Therapy Outcomes in Patients With Large Infarct

2023· article· en· W4389045828 on OpenAlex
Dapeng Sun, Xu Guo, Thanh N. Nguyen, Yuesong Pan, Gaoting Ma, Xu Tong, ­ Raynald, Mengxing Wang, Ning Ma, Feng Gao, Dapeng Mo, Xiaochuan Huo, Zhongrong Miao, Guangxiong Yuan, Hongxing Han, Wenhuo Chen, Ming Wei, Jiangang Zhang, Zhimin Zhou, Xiaoxi Yao, Guoqing Wang, Weigen Song, Xueli Cai, Guangxian Nan, Di Li, Alvin Yi-Chou Wang, Wentong Ling, Chuwei Cai, Changming Wen, En Wang, Liyong Zhang, Changchun Jiang, Yajie Liu, Geng Liao, Tianxiao Li, Shudong Liu, Jinglun Li, Yaxuan Sun, Na Xu, Zongen Gao, Dongsheng Ju, Cunfeng Song, Jinggang Xuan, Feng Zhou, Qing Shi, Jun Luo, Yan Liu, Zaiyu Guo, Tong Li, Hongbo Zheng, Linzhi Dai, Junfeng Zhao, Liqiang Gui, Xiaokun Geng, Yufeng Tang, Congguo Yin, Hua Yang, Yongjun Wang, Yilong Wang, Liping Liu, David S. Liebeskind, Zeguang Ren, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Xunming Ji, Qiang Dong, Xinfeng Liu, Qingwu Yang, Jing Jing, Zhe Zhang, Yingkui Zhang, Wei Wu, Zhongqi Qi, Shuo Li, Zequan Yu, Jingyu Zhang, Fangguang Chen, Kangyue Li, Kai Zhang, Mingkai Hu, Jianmin Liu, Yao Chen, Kangning Chen, Kun Fang, Bo Song, Yi Dong, Ruiyang An, Yuying Sun, Yanan Wu, Chunlai Yu, Aoming Jin, Xianglong Xiang, Hongyi Yan, Yuanling He, Chunyang Li, Wei-Xia Kong, Yuhuan Chen, Chenhao Guo, Fengjie Ji, Pengshan Ji, Lei Liu, Xinghua Lu, Guangkuo Luo, Nanjing Wang, Yu Zhang, Bo Liu, Jian Yang, Jingjing Deng, Juan Wang, Wanru Wang, Hang Yu, Le Cui, Wenwen Liu, Ziyong Wang, Xia Zhao, Zhou Zhou

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Modified Rankin ScaleOdds ratioPsychological interventionCore (optical fiber)Internal medicinePhysical therapyIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Endovascular therapy (EVT) demonstrated better outcomes compared with medical management in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients with large infarct. Objective: To compare outcomes of EVT vs medical management across different strata of the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) and infarct core volume in patients with large infarct. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of subgroups of the Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) RCT included patients from 46 stroke centers across China between October 2, 2020, and May 18, 2022. Participants were enrolled within 24 hours of symptom onset and had ASPECTS of 3 to 5 or 0 to 2 and infarct core volume of 70 to 100 mL. Patients were divided into 3 groups: ASPECTS of 3 to 5 with infarct core volume less than 70 mL, ASPECTS of 3 to 5 with infarct core volume of 70 mL or greater, and ASPECTS of 0 to 2. Interventions: Endovascular therapy or medical management. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the ordinal 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Results: There were 455 patients in the trial; median age was 68 years (IQR, 60-73 years), and 279 (61.3%) were male. The treatment effect did not vary significantly across the 3 baseline imaging subgroups (P = .95 for interaction). The generalized odds ratio for the shift in the 90-day mRS distribution toward better outcomes with EVT vs medical management was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.06-1.85; P = .01) in patients with ASPECTS of 3 to 5 and infarct core volume less than 70 mL, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.81-1.83; P = .23) in patients with ASPECTS of 3 to 5 and infarct core volume of 70 mL or greater, and 1.59 (95% CI, 0.89-2.86; P = .09) in patients with ASPECTS of 0 to 2. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, no significant interaction was found between baseline imaging status and the benefit of EVT compared with medical management in patients with large infarct core volume. However, estimates within subgroups were underpowered. A pooled analysis of large core trials stratified by ASPECTS and infarct core volume strata is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04551664.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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