A Meta‐Analysis of the Association Between Early Venous Filling and Hemorrhagic Transformation After Endovascular Treatment in Acute Large Vessel Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis assessed the link between early venous filling (EVF) and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) post-endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and selected articles per preset criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and RevMan 5 was used for meta-analysis. Stata 15 was used to test for publication bias. RESULTS: Eight studies with 1758 AIS patients were included. EVF was associated with a higher HT rate after EVT (OR 4.5, 95% CI 3.47-5.85, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed EVF was linked to higher incidences of hemorrhagic infarction (HI; OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.03-2.67, p = 0.04), parenchymal hematoma (PH; OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.55-5.83, p < 0.001), and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH; OR 5.95, 95% CI 2.99-11.83, p < 0.001). EVF was also related to a higher 90-day poor prognosis rate (OR 3.12, 95% CI 2.14-4.54, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows EVF positively correlates with HT and poor prognosis after EVT, having significant implications for acute LVO stroke management.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".