MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406992985 · doi:10.1161/str.56.suppl_1.57

Abstract 57: Proteomic markers in large core ischemic stroke and pharmaco-therapeutic possibilities

2025· article· en· W4406992985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hassan Aboul Nour, Jacqueline A. Frank, L. M. Miller, Ann Stowe, Amanda L. Trout, Shivani Pahwa, Mais Al‐Kawaz, David Dornbos, Justin F. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeCore (optical fiber)Internal medicineCardiologyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Acute ischemic stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in the U.S. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has transformed care for patients with small or moderate core infarcts and recently expanded to include those with large infarcts, demonstrating both functional and survival benefits. Despite this, many patients undergoing MT still experience significant disability or death. The discovery of novel adjuvant pharmacotherapies is increasingly critical as MT indications broaden. This study aimed to identify proteomic expression patterns in large core infarct patients undergoing MT to inform potential pharmacological intervention targets. Methods: The Blood And Clot Thrombectomy Registry And Collaboration (BACTRAC) tissue registry was reviewed for anterior circulation MT patients treated between June 2017-December 2023. Patients with an initial Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) > 6 were compared to those with ASPECTS < 6. The primary outcome was the development of malignant cerebral edema (MCE), defined as edema with any degree of midline shift secondary to a completed infarct in the intracranial internal carotid or middle cerebral artery territories. Results: One hundred and thirty patients were eligible for out study of which 15 (11.5%) had ASPECTS <6. Patients with ASPECTS <6 were younger (60.5 vs 67.5 years, p=0.04) and more likely to have history of myocardial infarction (27% vs 4%, p=0.01), higher NIHSS on admission (26 vs 17, p<0.0001) and discharge (25 vs 7, p<0.0001) when compared to patients with ASPECTS > 6. Other baseline demographics were comparable. Ten patients (66.6%) with ASPECTS<6 developed MCE versus 11 patients (9.5%) with ASPECTS > 6 (p<0.0001). In MCE patients those with ASPECTS<6 had significantly higher expression of FGF 21, DPP4 and NT-3 (p=0.02, 0.04 and 0.04, respectively) and lower expression of IGFBP6 and TWEAK (P=0.006 and 0.03, respectively). Conclusion: Patients with large core infarcts (ASPECTS <6) undergoing MT are at a significantly higher risk of developing malignant cerebral edema. The differential expression of proteomic markers such as FGF 21, DPP4, NT-3, IGFBP6, and TWEAK in these patients suggests potential targets for pharmacological intervention. These findings highlight the need for further research into neuroprotective strategies to improve outcomes in this high-risk 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207