Effect of occlusion site on the effectiveness and safety of endovascular thrombectomy for large ischemic cores: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have shown that patients with large ischemic cores have better outcomes with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) compared with standard medical treatment (SMT) alone. The authors aim to assess whether the relationship between EVT and improvements in clinical outcomes varies depending on the location of the occlusive sites. METHODS: This study is a subgroup analysis conducted within a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry. The cohort included patients with acute large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation and an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score of 0-5 within 24 h from last known well. The authors utilized the adjusted common odds ratio for a shift toward better outcomes on the modified Rankin Scale after EVT compared with SMT alone as the primary outcome. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). RESULTS: A total of 745 patients with large ischemic cores were included: 272 (36.5%) with internal carotid artery occlusion, 392 (52.6%) with M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery occlusion, and 81 (11.0%) with M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery occlusion. The adjusted common odds ratios were as follows: 1.98 (95% CI: 1.01-3.89) for ICA occlusions, 2.09 (95% CI: 1.35-3.23) for M1 occlusions, and 1.13 (95% CI: 0.43-2.94) for M2 occlusions. There was no significant treatment-by-occlusion site interaction observed ( P =0.69). However, the incidence of sICH was significantly greater in all groups receiving EVT than in those receiving SMT alone. Additionally, the authors observed that the secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the main outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the authors found that patients with internal carotid artery and M1 occlusion demonstrated a better outcome with EVT, while the benefit for patients with M2 occlusion remains uncertain.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".