MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413008745 · doi:10.3390/jcm14155556

Factors Associated with Functional Outcome Following Acute Ischemic Stroke Due to M1 MCA/ICA Occlusion in the Extended Time Window

2025· article· en· W4413008745 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Constantakis, Quinn Steiner, Thomas Reher, Timothy Choi, Fauzia Osman, Qianqian Zhao, Nicole Bennett, Veena A. Nair, Eric E. Adelman, Vivek Prabhakaran, Beverly Aagard-Kienitz, Bolanle Famakin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisModified Rankin ScaleLogistic regressionStroke (engine)Internal carotid arteryMultivariate analysisInternal medicineUnivariate analysisUnivariateOcclusionCerebral infarctionRetrospective cohort studyCardiologyMultivariate statisticsIschemic strokeIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A validated clinical decision tool predictive of favorable functional outcomes following endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains elusive. We performed a retrospective case series of patients at our regional Comprehensive Stroke Center, over a four-year period, who have undergone EVT to elucidate patient characteristics and factors associated with a favorable functional outcome after EVT. Methods: We reviewed all cases of EVT at our institution between February 2018 and February 2022 in the extended time window from 6–24 h. Demographic, clinical, imaging, and procedure co-variates were included. A favorable clinical outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale of 0–2. We included patients with M1 or internal carotid artery occlusion treated with EVT within 6–24 h after symptom onset. We used a univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify patient factors associated with a favorable clinical outcome at 90 days. Results: Our study included evaluation of 121 patients who underwent EVT at our comprehensive stroke center. Our analysis demonstrates that a higher recanalization score based on the modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scale (2B-3) was a strong indicator of a favorable outcome (OR 7.33; CI 2.06–26.07; p = 0.0021). Our data also showed that a higher baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (p = 0.0095) and the presence of pre-existing hypertension (p = 0.0035) may also be predictors of an unfavorable outcome (mRS > 2) per our multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Patients without pre-existing hypertension had more favorable outcomes following EVT in the expanded time window. This is consistent with other multicenter data in the expanded time window that demonstrates greater odds of a poor outcome with elevated pre-, peri-, and post-endovascular-treatment blood pressure. Our data also demonstrate that the mTICI score is a strong predictor of favorable outcome, even after controlling for other variables. A lower baseline NIHSS at the time of thrombectomy may also indicate a favorable outcome. Furthermore, the presence of clinical or radiographic mismatch based on the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) and NIHSS per DAWN and DEFUSE-3 criteria did not emerge as a predictor of favorable outcome, which is congruent with recent randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→