Can ischemic stroke patients with mTICI of 2b achieve similar outcomes compared to those with complete recanalization following endovascular therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose Endovascular therapy (EVT) has been used as a standard treatment method for patients with large vessel ischemic stroke within 24 h of the onset. The extent of recanalization after EVT can be assessed using the modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) scale as an accepted angiographic grading system. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether patients with a mTICI grade of 2b achieve similar outcomes compared to those with complete recanalization (mTICI of 3) following EVT for acute ischemic stroke. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 196 consecutive patients who underwent EVT in a comprehensive stroke center. In the final study, 176 patients were included based on the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0–2 considered as a favorable outcome, while excellent outcomes were defined as mRS scores of 0–1. Results Our data showed that 59.46% of patients in the mTICI 2b group achieved a favorable outcome, comparable to 58.99% observed in the mTICI 3 group (p = 0.959). Additionally, 54.05% (n = 37) of patients with mTICI 2b achieved an excellent outcome, compared to 51.80% (n = 139) in the mTICI 3 group (p = 0.807). The case fatality rates were also comparable between the groups, with 8.11% in the mTICI 2b group and 10.79% in the mTICI 3 group (p = 0.632). Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of 3-month favorable outcomes, excellent outcomes, or mortality. Conclusion Similar 3-month outcomes can be achieved for ischemic stroke patients undergoing EVT with a mTICI grade of 2b compared to those with a mTICI grade of 3. These data can help clinicians in setting realistic expectations and making informed decisions during EVT procedures.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".