Endovascular treatment in the posterior circulation stroke: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objective: Posterior circulation stroke accounts for approximately 20% of all ischemic strokes and is a serious neurological event affecting a different areas of the brain. Although endovascular treatment is the gold standard for stroke in the anterior circulation system, there is no consensus on the best treatment in the posterior circulation system. We aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of the procedure in posterior circulation system stroke. Methods: Patients older than 18 years of age who had been diagnosed with a stroke in the posterior circulation system are included. Symptom duration, Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography scores in the posterior system, occlusion level, arrival Glascow Coma Scores (GCS), admission National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores, 90-day mortality, modified treatment score for cerebral infarction and 3rd month modified Rankin Scores (mRS) were examined retrospectively. Results: The study population included 29 patients. Average procedure duration and average symptom duration was calculated as 61.72±49.09 and 235.90±153.13 minutes respectively. Average GCS score was found to be 8.86±4.27. Most of the occlusions were distal basilar (51.7%). Revascularization was achieved in 82.8% (n=24) of the cases. Favourable outcome (mRS ≤3 ) was achieved in 41.3% of the cases. Three cases of symptomatic haemorrhage occured after the treatment. Conclusion: Although the success of the procedure in the posterior circulation system is relatively high, the desired good functional outcome rates still remain low. Ensuring rapid diagnosis of patients and shortening the duration of symptoms will positively affect the prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".