Endovascular therapy versus medical management in isolated anterior cerebral artery acute ischemic stroke: a multinational multicenter propensity score-weighted study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isolated anterior cerebral artery occlusions (ACAo) in patients with acute ischemic stroke present significant challenges due to their rarity. The efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy (EVT) in comparison with best medical therapy (BMT) for ACAo remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of these treatments. METHODS: This multinational, multicenter study analyzed data from the MAD-MT registry. Data were collected retrospectively from 37 sites across North America, Asia, and Europe. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance confounding variables. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included excellent outcomes (mRS 0-1), mortality at 90 days, and NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on day 1 post treatment. RESULTS: Of the 108 patients, 36 received BMT and 72 underwent EVT. The median age was 75 years, and 56% were male. At 90 days, 40% of patients achieved mRS 0-2, with no significant difference between EVT and BMT (38% vs 45%, p=0.46). Procedural success (mTICI 2b-3) was 91% in the EVT group, with a sICH rate of 2.9%. IPTW-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference between EVT and BMT for functional independence (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.23 to 6.02, p=0.85), mortality (25% vs 21%, p=0.71) or day 1 NIHSS scores (Beta 2.2, 95% CI -0.51 to 4.8, p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: EVT showed high procedural success but did not significantly improve functional outcomes or mortality compared with BMT in patients with ACAo. Further randomized trials are needed to clarify EVT's role in ACAo.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".