Abstract 157: Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With Tandem Lesions Presenting With Low Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: The effect of endovascular therapy (EVT) in tandem lesion (TL) patients with baseline large core infarct is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of EVT in TL patients with low ASPECTS (0-5). We also compared the safety of acute carotid stenting (CAS) in TLs with low ASPECTS. Methods: This prospective multicenter study from 16 centers included patients with anterior circulation TL from 2015-2020. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, EVT for intracranial occlusion, and underwent treatment for extracranial ICA lesions with >70% stenosis. Patients were divided into ASPECTS 0-5 and 6-10 groups. Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) was used to assess the association of outcomes. Results: Of the 691 patients, 44 had an ASPECTS 0-5 and 505 had ASPECTS 6-10. After matching, there were decreased odds of favorable shift in mRS at 90 days (30.7% vs 48%, OR: 0.52, CI:0.29-0.97; p=0.002), higher rates of sICH (11.4% vs 3.6%, OR: 3.18, CI: 1.07-9.49; p=0.038), 90-day mortality (35.9% vs 16.3%; OR: 2.35, CI: 1.16-4.74; p=0.017) and comparable rates of successful reperfusion (79.5% vs 88.7%; OR: 0.73, CI: 0.33-1.63, p=0.45), excellent reperfusion (50% vs 49.1%; OR: 1.35, CI: 0.72-2.53; p=0.35) excellent reperfusion (50% vs 49.1%; OR: 1.35, CI: 0.72-2.53; p=0.35) in the ASPECTS 0-5 compared with 6-10. Among patients with ASPECTS 0-5, no significant differences were noted for sICH (OR: 0.31, CI: 0.03-3.05; p=0.32), PH2 (OR: 1.14, CI: 0.26-5.02; p=0.86), petechial hemorrhages (OR: 0.79, CI: 0.10-6.05; p=0.82), and 90-day mortality (OR: 0.68, CI: 0.14-3.45; p=0.6) in patients with stenting (18/44) versus no-stenting (25/44). Conclusion: This multicenter cohort study of AIS patients with TLs demonstrated poor outcomes for functional independence at 90 days and higher rates of sICH and mortality in patients with low ASPECTS (0-5). Among patients with ASPECTS 0-5, rates of sICH and mortality were similar in stenting and non-stenting groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".