Infarcts Due to Large Vessel Occlusions Continue to Grow Despite Near-Complete Reperfusion After Endovascular Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarcts in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients may continue to grow even after reperfusion, due to mechanisms such as microvascular obstruction and reperfusion injury. We investigated whether and how much infarcts grow in AIS patients after near-complete (expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [eTICI] 2c/3) reperfusion following endovascular treatment (EVT), and to assess the association of post-reperfusion infarct growth with clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data are from a single-center retrospective observational cohort study that included AIS patients undergoing EVT with near-complete reperfusion who received diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within 2 hours post-EVT and 24 hours after EVT. Association of infarct growth between 2 and 24 hours post-EVT and 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) as well as 90-day modified Rankin Scale score was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Ninety-four of 155 (60.6%) patients achieved eTICI 2c/3 and were included in the analysis. Eighty of these 94 (85.1%) patients showed infarct growth between 2 and 24 hours post-reperfusion. Infarct growth ≥5 mL was seen in 39/94 (41.5%) patients, and infarct growth ≥10 mL was seen in 20/94 (21.3%) patients. Median infarct growth between 2 and 24 hours post-reperfusion was 4.5 mL (interquartile range: 0.4-9.2 mL). Post-reperfusion infarct growth was associated with the 24-hour NIHSS in multivariable analysis (odds ratio: 1.16 [95% confidence interval 1.09-1.24], P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Infarcts continue to grow after EVT, even if near-complete reperfusion is achieved. Investigating the underlying mechanisms may inform future therapeutic approaches for mitigating the process and help improve patient 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".