Acute ischemic stroke with or without asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment: a propensity-score matching study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term follow-up of asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) in patients with acute ischemic stroke after endovascular treatment (EVT) remains controversial. O b j e c t i v e To evaluate the potential effect of aICH in a real-world practice setting using a matched prospective database. METHODS: This observational cohort study enrolled patients between January 2015 and December 2022 in a prospective database. Eligible patients with occlusions in the anterior circulation were given endovascular treatment and achieved successful reperfusion. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2). Propensity score (PS)-weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses were adjusted and were repeated in subsequent 1:1 PS-matched cohorts. RESULTS: 732 patients, 516 without any ICH and 216 with aICH, were included. 418 and 348 patients were identified after matching in the aICH substudy and hemorrhagic infarction type aICH substudy, respectively. In the postmatched population, patients with aICH had worse functional outcomes (mRS score 0-2) at 90 days than patients without any ICH (37.8% vs 55.5%: P<0.001). Worse functional outcomes were seen in patients with aICH who were older (OR=5.59 (95% CI 2.91 to 10.74)), had higher baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (OR=6.80 (95% CI 3.72 to 12.43)), lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (OR=2.08 (95% CI 1.23 to 3.51)), and who received general anesthesia (OR=3.37 (95% CI 1.92 to 5.90)). CONCLUSIONS: This matched-control study largely confirmed that asymptomatic ICH after EVT is associated with worse functional outcomes, and the harmful effect is more significant in older patients and those with severe baseline clinical and radiological features.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".