Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Thrombolysis by Infarct Type in Patients with No Visible Occlusion: A Secondary Analysis of the AcT Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About 25% of patients with acute ischemic stroke have lacunar infarct on follow-up imaging. In this secondary analysis from the AcT (Alteplase Compared With Tenecteplase) trial, we assessed if there is variation in safety or efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis by infarct type in patients with no visible occlusion. We also determined if this effect differed between tenecteplase and alteplase. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a secondary analysis from the AcT trial. Lacunar infarct was defined as single, ≤15 mm, and in regions supplied by perforating arterioles on 24-hour imaging. Outcomes included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage at 24 hours, any hemorrhage on imaging, and 90-day modified Rankin Scale score. Mixed-effects regression models adjusted for age, sex, stroke severity, thrombolytic type, and onset-to-needle time were used. Of 1577 patients, 456/29.9% had no visible occlusion and interpretable follow-up imaging (magnetic resonance imaging: 41.2%). Of these 93 (20.4%) (magnetic resonance imaging: 62.3%) had lacunar infarct, 171 (37.5%) (magnetic resonance imaging: 67.4%) had nonlacunar infarct, and 192 (42.1%) (magnetic resonance imaging: 7.3%) had no visible infarct. Four patients (2.3%) in the group with nonlacunar infarct and none in the groups with lacunar infarct and no visible infarct developed symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Any intracranial hemorrhage was highest (21; 12.4%) in the group with nonlacunar infarct. There was no significant interaction between thrombolytic type and treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In the AcT trial, safety of intravenous thrombolysis was similar across all infarct types in patients with no visible occlusion but functional outcomes were worst in patients with nonlacunar infarct. Safety and functional outcomes after intravenous thrombolysis were better in the groups with lacunar infarct and no visible infarct as compared with the overall trial population.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".