Safety and clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy versus medical management in late presentation of large ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) among stroke patients with large ischemic core (ASPECTS 0-5) in the extended time window outside of trial settings remains unclear. We analyzed the effect of EVT among these stroke patients in real-world settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The CT for Late Endovascular Reperfusion (CLEAR) study recruited patients from 66 centers in 10 countries between 01/2014 and 05/2022. The extended time-window was defined as 6-24 h from last-seen-well to treatment. The primary outcome was shift of the 3-month modified Rankin scale (mRS) score. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed with ordinal and logistic regressions. RESULTS: = 209/310) was associated with lower 3-month mRS when compared to medical management (median 4 IQR 3-6 vs 6 IQR 4-6; aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7). Patients undergoing EVT had higher sICH (11.2% vs 4.0%; aOR 4.1, 95% CI 1.2-18.8) and lower mortality (31.6% vs 58.4%, aOR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.9) compared to medically managed patients. The relative benefit of EVT was comparable between patients with ASPECTS 0 and 5 and 6-10 in the extended time window (interaction aOR 0.9; 95% CI 0.5-1.7). CONCLUSION: In the extended time window, patients with ASPECTS 0-5 may have preserved relative treatment benefit of EVT compared to patients with ASPECTS 6-10. These findings are in line with recent trials showing benefit of EVT among real-world patients with large ischemic core in the extended time window. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04096248.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".