Treatment outcomes of successful M1 versus M2 thrombectomy for low-ASPECTS stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS) stroke patients with occlusion of the second segment of the middle cerebral artery (M2) is unclear.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients with M1 or M2 occlusions and low ASPECTS (<6) who underwent successful EVT (modified treatment in cerebral ischemia score of 2b or higher) were included. Primary outcome was futile EVT reperfusion (defined as 90-day modified Rankin scale of 5 or 6). Other outcomes of interest include acceptable outcomes (modified Rankin scale of 3 or less) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and all-cause 90-day mortality. Outcomes for M1 patients were compared to M2 patients with multivariable logistic regression models accounting for potential confounders.Results173 patients with M1 or M2 occlusions and low ASPECTS (<6) who underwent successful EVT were identified. After multivariable adjustments, M2 patients had significantly higher odds of futile reperfusion (OR 5.48 [95%CI 1.91 to 15.7], p = 0.002), lower odds of acceptable outcomes (OR 0.33 [95%CI 0.12 to 0.89], p = 0.028), and higher odds of all-cause mortality (OR 4.90 [95%CI 1.65 to 14.5], p = 0.004). These findings suggest that EVT's efficacy for low-ASPECTS stroke patients may be diminished for patients with M2 occlusions. M2 occlusion was not significantly associated with ICH.ConclusionsAmong low-ASEPCTS stroke patients who underwent successful EVT, those with M2 occlusions had significantly higher odds of poor outcome compared to those with M1 occlusions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".