MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413623419 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.050086

Endovascular Therapy Versus Medical Management for Large Ischemic Infarct: 1-Year Outcomes of the ANGEL-ASPECT Trial

2025· article· en· W4413623419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaochuan Huo, Dapeng Sun, Thanh N. Nguyen, Gaoting Ma, Yuesong Pan, Xin Tong, Guangxiong Yuan, Hongxing Han, Wenhuo Chen, Ming Wei, Jiangang Zhang, Zhiming Zhou, Xiaoxi Yao, Weigen Song, Xueli Cai, Guangxian Nan, Di Li, Alvin Yi-Chou Wang, Wentong Ling, Chuwei Cai, Changming Wen, En Wang, Liyong Zhang, Changchun Jiang, Geng Liao, Tianxiao Li, Shudong Liu, Jinglun Li, Na Xu, Zongen Gao, Dongsheng Ju, Cunfeng Song, Feng Zhou, Qing Shi, Yan Liu, Zaiyu Guo, Hongbo Zheng, Linzhi Dai, Junfeng Zhao, Xiaokun Geng, Yufeng Tang, Congguo Yin, Hua Yang, Xuelei Zhang, Shuo Li, Mohamad Abdalkader, Feng Gao, Ning Ma, Dapeng Mo, Zeguang Ren, Liping Liu, Yongjun Wang, Zhongrong Miao

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Clinical endpointClinical trialInternal medicineSurgeryIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several trials have shown the benefit and safety of endovascular therapy (EVT) compared with medical management (MM) of patients with a large ischemic core in the 90-day follow-up. However, the 1-year outcome comparison between EVT and MM in Asian patients with a large ischemic core has not been investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the 1-year outcomes of patients in the ANGEL-ASPECT trial (Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients with a Large Infarct Core). METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label, blinded end point assessment trial, patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion and an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 3 to 5 or an infarct core volume of 70 to 100 mL were enrolled across 46 hospitals in China. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to EVT or MM. The 90-day outcomes were previously reported. We report a prespecified analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial, with 1-year functional outcome as the primary outcome in this study. The primary outcome was the shift of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range, 0-6, with a higher score reflecting greater disability) to better outcomes at 1-year. The secondary outcomes included functional independence (mRS score, 0-2), independent ambulation (mRS score, 0-3), and mortality. This trial is registered with https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (Unique identifier: NCT04551664). RESULTS: =0.04). Functional independence and independent ambulation were higher in the EVT compared with MM groups (mRS score, 0-2: 30.4% [65/214] versus 17.1% [36/211]; relative risk, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.27-2.75]; mRS score, 0-3: 50.0% [107/214] versus 35.6% [75/211]; relative risk, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85], respectively). The 1-year mortality rate was 31.3% (67/214) in the EVT group and 26.5% (56/211) in the MM group (relative risk, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.82-1.53]). In addition, no change was found in the rate of functional independence between 90 days and 1 year in the EVT group (29.4% [69/214] versus 30.4% [65/214], respectively); however, a gain in functional independence was observed in the MM group from 90 days to 1 year (10.9% [26/211] versus 17.1% [36/211]), narrowing the magnitude of EVT treatment effect from 18.5% at 90 days to 13.3% at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with large ischemic stroke from a proximal arterial occlusion presenting within 24 hours of onset, EVT reduced disability with durable 1-year benefit compared with MM. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04551664.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207