A.3 Comparison of anterior versus posterior circulation stroke patients undergoing thrombectomy: results from the OPTIMISE registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anterior (ACS) and posterior circulation (PCS) stroke patients have different clinical presentations and prognoses, though both benefit from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). We sought to determine whether ACS and PCS patients treated with EVT differed with regards to treatment metrics and functional outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analysed theCanadian OPTIMISE registry which included data from 20 comprehensive stroke centers across Canada between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022. We performed a descriptive analysis of patients divided in two groups (ACS= carotid artery and its branches, PCS= vertebrobasilar system). Results: Of the 6391 patients included (5929 ACS and 462 PCS), PSC patients were younger (67 vs. 71.3, p<0.001), more often male (61.9% vs. 48.6%, p<0.001), had longer (in minutes) onset-to-door (362 vs. 256, p<0.001), door-to-needle (172 vs. 144, p=0.0016), and onset-to-puncture (459 vs. 329, p<0.001) times. They were less often thrombolyzed (39.8% vs. 50.4%, p<0.001), and more frequently underwent general anesthesia (47.6% vs. 10.6%, p<0.001). Successful reperfusion and functional independence at 90 days were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients with PCS had worst treatment metrics than ACS. Strategies to improve PCS management times are critical to decrease these disparities, including faster pre-hospital recognition and in-hospital workflows.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".