Abstract 9273: Meta-Analysis of Stroke After Transradial Versus Transfemoral Artery Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the risk of stroke after transradial (TR) versus transfemoral (TF) artery cardiac catheterization. Background: TR catheterization is gaining popularity due to its association with lower bleeding and access site complications, improved patient comfort, and lower costs compared to TF catheterization; however, there is concern that TR catheterization may be associated with an increased risk of neurological complications. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized studies published until 2013 reporting risk of stroke in TR vs. TF catheterization. Results: Data from 11,273 patients in 13 studies were collated. The majority of patients were men, and 8,987 (79.7%) were enrolled in acute coronary syndrome trials. Very few patients had a history of prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and approximately 2/3 of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Stroke occurred in 25 of 5,659 patients in the TR group, vs. 24 of 5,614 patients in the TF group. There was no difference in stroke rates between the TR and TF groups ( Figure , risk difference 0.00%, 95% confidence interval -0.29% - 0.25%, p=0.88). This finding was consistent in a number of sensitivity analyses (excluding non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials, non-ACS trials, trials reporting in-hospital events or 30-day events, trials requiring radial expertise). Conclusions: TR catheterization is not associated with a significant increase in stroke compared to TF catheterization.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".