MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405996879 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.049307

Sex-Based Differences in Endovascular Thrombectomy Outcomes for Large Ischemic Stroke: A SELECT2 Subanalysis

2025· article· en· W4405996879 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenny P. Tsai, Thanh N. Nguyen, Deep Pujara, Johanna T Fifi, Sophia Sundararajan, Joanna D. Schaafsma, Natàlia Pérez de la Ossa, Michael Abraham, Michael Chen, Muhammad Shazam Hussain, Santiago Ortega‐Gutiérrez, Hannah Johns, Leonid Churilov, Colleen Lechtenberg, Sabreena Slavin, Amanda Opaskar, Mercedes de Lera, Blanca Lara‐Rodríguez, Helena Quesada, Lauren E Fournier, Dana Defta, Faris Shaker, Clark Sitton, Anjail Sharrief, James C. Grotta, Michael D. Hill, Marc Ribó, Ameer E Hassan, Bruce Campbell, Cathy Sila, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, Amrou Sarraj

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfoundingStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical trialOddsGeneralized estimating equationPhysical therapyLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several social and biological factors are shown to differentially affect stroke outcomes between men and women. We evaluated whether clinical outcomes and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) treatment effects differed between the sexes in patients presenting with large ischemic stroke. METHODS: The SELECT2 trial (A Randomized Controlled Trial to Optimize Patient’s Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke) was a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of EVT in patients with large strokes across the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand between October 2019 and September 2022. In this subanalysis, baseline characteristics and clinical and imaging outcomes were compared between women and men, each further divided into cohorts receiving medical treatment without and with EVT. Functional outcomes at 90-day and 1-year follow-ups were assessed using regression models, adjusting for potential confounders. Sex-related effect modification was examined. RESULTS: Women accounted for 145 (41%) of 352 patients enrolled in the SELECT2 trial. Seventy-one (49%) of 145 women and 109 (53%) of 207 men underwent EVT. Endovascular intervention was associated with better functional outcomes (women: adjusted generalized odds ratio, 1.73 [1.22–2.45]; men: adjusted generalized odds ratio, 1.66 [1.24–2.23]; P -int: 0.94), functional independence (women: EVT, 20% versus medical management, 4%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 5.04 [1.59–16.02]; men: EVT, 20% versus medical management, 9%; aRR, 1.99 [0.99–4.02]; P -int: 0.20), and independent ambulation (women: EVT, 39% versus medical management, 16%; aRR, 2.44 [1.40–4.24]; men: EVT, 38% versus medical management, 20%; aRR, 1.98 [1.29–3.03]; P -int: 0.67) in both men and women at 90-day follow-up, without significant heterogeneity. Similar results were observed at 1-year follow-up. In women, as age increased (aRR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95–0.99]; P =0.004 per year) and core volume estimates increased (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.98–1.00]; P =0.015 per mL increase), the rate of independent ambulation after EVT decreased. A similar association of age and core volume was seen in men. CONCLUSIONS: EVT treatment benefit was maintained in both women and men, with higher rates of functional independence and independent ambulation as compared with medical management. Age and estimated core infarct volume were independently associated with independent ambulation in both male and female patients. EVT should be equally considered for patients of both sexes meeting large core eligibility criteria. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03876457.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207