Abstract WP259: Endovascular Treatment vs. Best Medical Management for Late Window Ischemic Stroke Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: To compare the benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) presenting >6 hours from last known well outside a clinical trial setting to best medical management and to EVT in a randomized trial setting. Methods: Data from a retrospective multicenter cohort study (ESCAPE LATE) of AIS-LVO patients treated with EVT beyond 6 hours from last known well at former ESCAPE trial sites were pooled with historical data from ESCAPE trial late time window patients. Unadjusted and adjusted 90-day modified Rankin score was compared between ESCAPE LATE patients, ESCAPE late time window EVT arm and control arm patients. Results: A total of 249 patients were included in the analysis: 200 ESCAPE LATE patients (for 141 of whom 90-day clinical outcomes were available) and 49 ESCAPE patients, for all of whom clinical outcome data were available (control arm: 20 and EVT arm: 29). Good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Score 0-2 at 90 days) was nominally, albeit not significantly, lower in patients not treated with EVT (5/19[26.3%]) as compared to ESCAPE EVT arm patients (13/29[44.8%] and ESCAPE-LATE patients (66/141[46.8%]). After adjustment, a graded mRS pattern was seen, whereby patients treated with EVT did better as compared to non-treated patients, and those who underwent EVT in the ESCAPE trial had better mRS as compared to those included in ESCAPE-LATE who underwent EVT in clinical routine. Conclusion: Patients presenting beyond 6 hours from last known well who are treated with EVT in a real-world setting show comparable benefit to patients treated in a clinical trial setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".