MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391448605 · doi:10.1161/str.55.suppl_1.40

Abstract 40: Relationship of Collateral Status With Clinical Outcomes in Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large Core Stroke: <i>A SELECT2 Subanalysis</i>

2024· article· en· W4391448605 on OpenAlexaff
Amrou Sarraj, Ameer E Hassan, Michael Abraham, Michael Chen, Muhammad Shazam Hussain, Scott E. Kasner, Santiago Ortega‐Gutiérrez, Leonid Churilov, Deep Pujara, Faris Shaker, Hannah Johns, Faisal Al-Shaibi, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Clark Sitton, Maarten G. Lansberg, Gregory W. Albers, Stephen M. Davis, Lawrence R. Wechsler, James C. Grotta, Michael D. Hill, Marc Ribó, Bruce Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Core (optical fiber)CollateralEndovascular treatmentInternal medicineRadiologyAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous studies demonstrating association of collateral status with clinical outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) excluded patients with large core infarcts. We analyzed the association of collateral status with clinical outcomes and EVT treatment effect in SELECT2. Methods: In SELECT2, a central core lab adjudicated CT-angiographic collateral status using collateral scores (CS) by Tan et al. Patients were stratified based on CS into poor (CS 0-1) vs good (CS 2-3) collaterals. The primary outcome was the distribution of modified Rankin Scale score at 90-day follow-up. Models were adjusted for core volume, ASPECTS in addition to age, stroke severity and time to randomization. Results: Of 352 patients, 180 received EVT. Median collateral status was 2(IQR 1-2). Patients presenting <6h after last known well (LKW) (n=100) had poorer collaterals than those presenting at 6-24 hours (n=252), median 1 (1-2) vs 2 (1-2), p<0.001. Collateral status inversely correlated with CTP core volume (Rho=-0.32, p<0.0001), but not with CT ASPECTS (Rho=0.07, p=0.16). Overall, point estimates favored EVT in patients with poor (CS 0-1) [aGenOR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.98-1.79, p=0.068] and good (CS 2-3) collaterals [aGenOR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.43-2.72, p<0.001] without significant heterogeneity [p-interaction=0.094]. However, in the earlier 0-6h time window, there was evidence of treatment effect hetermogeneity with a larger treatment effect when good collaterals were present [aGenOR: 4.10, 95% CI: 1.81-9.29] and an absent treatment effect when only poor collaterals were observed [aGenOR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.79-1.99], p-interaction=0.023. In the late time window, (6-12h), the EVT treatment effect did not differ significantly between poor collaterals (aGenOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91-2.01) and good collaterals (aGenOR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.24-2.56, p-interaction=0.50). Conclusion: Collateral status was worse in large core patients presenting in early (<6 hours) window; and correlated with ischemic core volume but not ASPECTS. Collaterals status modified EVT treatment effect in the early but not the late time window, in which both good and poor collaterals still benefited from EVT. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03876457

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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