A Comparison of Outcome between Two Different Age Groups after Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke of Anterior Circulation: A Single-Center Experience of 500 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) alone or with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) avoids disabilities in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study is to assess the outcome in two different age groups by combined technique (simultaneous stent retriever plus syringe aspiration) following thrombolysis in anterior circulation stroke and to analyze predictive factors. Materials and Methods: = 500) who had ≥ modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI)2b following Solitaire stent retriever MT following IVT. Patients with anterior circulation stroke were dichotomized based on whether younger or older than 50 years. We analyzed predictive factors for favorable clinical outcome and also evaluated the age-related adverse results, with focus on symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 7 days, favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] 0-2), and mortality at 3 months following procedure. Results: Among a total of 500 patients, 144 patients were in the young age group (≤50 years) with a mean age of 37.10 years, and 356 patients were in the old age group (>50 years) with a mean age of 63.55 years. There was a significant association between these two groups in the etiologies, medical history, age, puncture to recanalization time, and adverse results. Similarly, patient age ≤50 years, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score at admission < 15, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score >5, mTICI3, and onset to recanalization time < 4 hours were significantly predictive factors for a favorable outcome. Conclusion: Our study shows that the combined technique after IVT for anterior circulation stroke in large vessels is safe and effective; however, younger age has a higher rate of favorable outcome with a lower mortality rate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".