PICASSO (Proximal Internal Carotid Artery Acute Stroke Secondary to Tandem Lesion or Local Occlusion) Thrombectomy Randomized Trial: Study Protocol and Rationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal treatment of acute large vessel occlusion with concomitant extracranial steno-occlusive disease of the internal carotid artery remains unclear. The PICASSO (Proximal Internal Carotid Artery Acute Stroke Secondary to Tandem or Local Occlusion Thrombectomy Trial) randomized clinical trial is designed to answer the question whether acute carotid stenting is superior to a nonacute stenting approach in the setting of a tandem lesion or tandem occlusion. Methods: PICASSO is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open label, assessor-blinded acute ischemic stroke trial with pragmatic design enrolling up to 404 patients at up to 60 sites. Patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion with severe stenosis or complete occlusion (70%-100%) of the extracranial carotid artery who meet the imaging and clinical eligibility criteria will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo mechanical thrombectomy of the intracranial lesion plus emergent stenting of the extracranial lesion versus mechanical thrombectomy plus no stenting up to 16 hours from last known well. Results: The primary efficacy outcome is the ordinal shift of 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. The primary analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle stratified by the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT [Computed Tomography] Score (7-8 versus 9-10), degree of proximal carotid stenosis (70%-90% versus 91%-100%), NIHSS (≤ 10 versus > 10), and use of intravenous thrombolysis. The primary safety outcome is symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Secondary outcomes include 1-year mRS (dichotomized and ordinal), successful reperfusion, and vessel patency at follow-up. Subgroup analyses will include comparison of intravenous versus oral antiplatelets in the stenting arm, and treatment of proximal intracranial occlusion first versus a simultaneous approach. Conclusion: PICASSO is a pragmatic randomized trial, designed to address the safety and efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy with acute carotid stenting versus nonacute stenting with or without delayed revascularization treatment in patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion and concomitant extracranial severe stenosis or complete occlusion. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05611242.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".