P.027 Sex differences in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and procedural complications after endovascular thrombectomy: Analysis of the OPTIMISE registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies have found similar rates of functional independence for men and women after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Less is known regarding EVT-related procedural complications and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) between sexes. Methods: Using the OPTIMISE registry including data from 20 comprehensive stroke centers across Canada between 1/1/2018 and 12/31/2022, we performed a retrospective descriptive analysis of patients divided between men and women. Hemorrhagic transformation on follow-up imaging with associated clinical deterioration was required to define sICH. Results: 3631 patients were included (1778 men and 1853 women) for analysis. Female patients were older (71.8±14.6 vs 68.0±13.1 years, p<0.001). There were no differences in sICH rates (2.5% men vs. 2% women, p= 0.388}. Procedural complication rates were not different between men and women (5.8 vs 5.6% p=0.76): dissection {26 (1.5%) vs. 30 (1.6%), p=0.804}, perforation {11 (0.6%) vs. 7 (0.4%), p=0.426}, embolization {25 (1.4%) vs. 25 (1.3%), p=0.996} and arterial access complications {45 (2.5%) vs. 43 (2.3%), p=0.761}. Conclusions: In this large multicentre registry of stroke patients undergoing EVT, men and women had similarly low and reassuring rates of sICH and procedural complications. This complements previous data showing similar functional outcomes for men and women after EVT.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".