MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406315816 · doi:10.1177/19714009251313512

Impact of workflow times on successful reperfusion after endovascular treatment in the late time window

2025· article· en· W4406315816 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim Alhabli, Faysal Benali, Michael D. Hill, Séan Murphy, Danilo Toni, Patrik Michel, Ilaria Casetta, Sarah Power, Valentina Saia, Giovanni Pracucci, Salvatore Mangiafico, Karl Boyle, Stefania Nannoni, Enrico Fainardi, John Thornton, Beom Joon Kim, Bijoy K. Menon, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Fouzi Bala

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Neuroradiology Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisOdds ratioArrival timeConfidence intervalStroke (engine)Logistic regressionAnesthesiaSurgeryMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose Successful and complete reperfusion should be the aim of every endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) procedure. However, the effect of time delays on successful reperfusion in late window stroke patients presenting 6-to-24 h from onset has not been investigated. Materials and Methods We pooled individual patient-level data from seven trials and registries for anterior circulation stroke patients treated with EVT between 6 and 24 h from onset. We explored the impact of delays across multiple interval times, including onset to hospital arrival; hospital arrival to arterial puncture; imaging to arterial puncture; and onset to arterial puncture. Our primary outcome was successful reperfusion, defined as a modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) score of 2b–3. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between each of the interval times and successful reperfusion. Results We included 608 patients. The median age was 70 years (IQR 58–79), and 307 (50.5%) were females. Successful reperfusion was achieved in 494 (81.2%) patients. Patients with successful reperfusion had lower NIHSS scores (median 15 [IQR11–19] vs 17 [11–21], p = .02) and significantly shorter hospital arrival to arterial puncture time (90 min [60–150] vs 110 min [84.5–150], p = .01) than unsuccessful reperfusion. The odds of successful reperfusion decreased by 15% for every one-hour delay in arrival-to-puncture time (adjusted odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75–0.95). Other workflow times did not impact the rate of successful reperfusion. Conclusion Faster hospital arrival to arterial puncture time is associated with higher odds of successful reperfusion in late window stroke patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Neuroradiology JournalSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207