MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396881277 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209270

Effect of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke on Cognitive Outcomes

2024· article· en· W4396881277 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raed A. Joundi, Eric E. Smith, Jennifer Mandzia, Aravind Ganesh, Bijoy K. Menon, Jeremy Rempel, John Thornton, Daniel Roy, Tudor G. Jovin, Dar Dowlatshahi, Donald Frei, Aditya Bharatha, Alexandre Y. Poppe, Frank L. Silver, Ashfaq Shuaib, Jeanne Teitelbaum, David Williams, Oh Young Bang, Biggya L. Sapkota, Paul Burns, Hana Choe, Jie-Hoe Heo, Michael Kelly, Guillermo Linares, Jai Shankar, Sung‐Il Sohn, Richard H. Swartz, Philip A. Barber, Shelagh B. Coutts, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mayank Goyal, Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeCognitionCardiologyBrain ischemiaEndovascular treatmentInternal medicineSurgeryIschemiaPsychiatryAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and ObjectivesThe effect of endovascular therapy (EVT) for large vessel occlusion stroke on cognitive outcomes is not well understood. We evaluated the effect of EVT on cognitive function in the Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Anterior Circulation Proximal Occlusion With Emphasis on Minimizing CT to Recanalization Times (ESCAPE) trial. MethodsPatient data from the ESCAPE randomized trial were analyzed. Cognitive assessments completed at 90 days after stroke were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Sunnybrook Neglect Assessment Procedure (SNAP), the Boston Naming Test (BNT), Trail-making test A (Trails A), and Trail-making test B (Trails B). We used logistic regression to evaluate the association between EVT and favorable cognitive outcome on the 5 separate tests, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. We used generalized estimating equations and ordinal regression to determine the odds of favorable outcome with EVT on global cognition incorporating the 5 tests. We added final infarct volume (FIV) to the models to assess the relationship of FIV with cognitive outcome. ResultsThe ESCAPE trial included 315 patients, 165 randomized to EVT and 150 randomized to control. There was higher odds of favorable outcome with EVT for MoCA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.32, 95% CI 1.30–4.16), SNAP (aOR 3.85, 95% CI 2.00–7.45), BNT (aOR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30–4.17), trails A (aOR 3.50, 95% CI 1.93–6.36), and trails B (aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.46–4.48). There was higher odds of favorable outcome with EVT on global binary (aOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.67–3.94) and ordinal analyses (aOR 2.83, 95% CI 1.68–4.76) of cognitive function. After adding FIV to the models, both FIV and EVT were significantly associated with cognitive outcome. There was a significant correlation between global cognitive performance and mRS at day 90 (r = −0.78, p < 0.001), with the largest reductions in favorable cognitive outcome from mRS score 4 to 5 and from mRS 2 to 3. DiscussionIn this secondary analysis of the ESCAPE trial, EVT was associated with favorable outcome on 5 separate cognitive tests and in global analyses of cognitive benefit. These results provide novel evidence for the effect of EVT on cognition and support the global benefit of treatment with EVT. Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) or M1 segment MCA occlusion, including tandem extracranial ICA occlusions, EVT compared with best medical therapy increased odds of favorable cognitive outcome.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207