MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394739589 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.043358

Thrombolysis for Wake-Up Stroke Versus Non–Wake-Up Unwitnessed Stroke: EOS Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4394739589 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Naruhiko Kamogawa, Kaori Miwa, Ḱazunori Toyoda, Märit Jensen, Manabu Inoue, Sohei Yoshimura, Mayumi Fukuda‐Doi, Takanari Kitazono, Florent Boutitie, Henry Ma, Peter A. Ringleb, Ona Wu, Lee H. Schwamm, Steven Warach, Werner Hacke, Stephen M. Davis, Geoffrey A. Donnan, Christian Gerloff, Götz Thomalla, Masatoshi Koga, Bastian Cheng, Martin Bendszus, Christopher Bladin, Leonid Churilov, Brunce Campbell, Mark Parsons, Nawaf Yassi, Martin Ebinger, Matthias Endres, Jochen B. Fiebach, Timothy Kleinig, Lawrence L. Latour, Robin Lemmens, Christopher Levi, Didier Leys, Carlos A. Molina, Keith W. Muir, Norbert Nighoghossian, Salvador Pedraza, Peter D. Schellinger, Stefan Schwab, Claus Z. Simonsen, Shlee Song, Vincent Thijs, Danilo Toni, Chung Y. Hsu, Nils Wahlgren

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNHLBI Division of Intramural ResearchNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringDaiichi Sankyo CompanyGenentechAllerganNational Institutes of HealthMitsubishi Tanabe Pharma CorporationCentre d'Imagerie BioMédicaleDaiichi Sankyo EuropeEuropean CommissionBayer HealthCareJanssen PharmaceuticalsBoehringer Ingelheim JapanAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General HospitalGemeinnützige Hertie-StiftungNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeMassachusetts General HospitalAmgenPfizerAbbott JapanOtsuka PharmaceuticalAbbott CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)CardiologyMeta-analysisInternal medicineWakeMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stroke with unknown time of onset can be categorized into 2 groups; wake-up stroke (WUS) and unwitnessed stroke with an onset time unavailable for reasons other than wake-up (non–wake-up unwitnessed stroke, non-WUS). We aimed to assess potential differences in the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) between these subgroups. METHODS: Patients with an unknown-onset stroke were evaluated using individual patient-level data of 2 randomized controlled trials (WAKE-UP [Efficacy and Safety of MRI-Based Thrombolysis in Wake-Up Stroke], THAWS [Thrombolysis for Acute Wake-Up and Unclear-Onset Strokes With Alteplase at 0.6 mg/kg]) comparing IVT with placebo or standard treatment from the EOS (Evaluation of Unknown-Onset Stroke Thrombolysis trial) data set. A favorable outcome was prespecified as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 22 to 36 hours and 90-day mortality. The IVT effect was compared between the treatment groups in the WUS and non-WUS with multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-four patients from 2 trials were analyzed; 542 had WUS (191 women, 272 receiving alteplase), and 92 had non-WUS (42 women, 43 receiving alteplase). Overall, no significant interaction was noted between the mode of onset and treatment effect ( P value for interaction=0.796). In patients with WUS, the frequencies of favorable outcomes were 54.8% and 45.5% in the IVT and control groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.01–2.16]). Death occurred in 4.0% and 1.9%, respectively ( P =0.162), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in 1.8% and 0.3%, respectively ( P =0.194). In patients with non-WUS, no significant difference was observed in favorable outcomes relative to the control (37.2% versus 29.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.76 [0.58–5.37]). One death and one symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were reported in the IVT group, but none in the control. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the effect of IVT between patients with WUS and non-WUS. IVT showed a significant benefit in patients with WUS, while there was insufficient statistical power to detect a substantial benefit in the non-WUS subgroup. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: CRD42020166903.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.052
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207