In situ post-ischemic conditioning by temporary balloon occlusion for acute ischemic stroke: a modified reperfusion technique and adverse event monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: post-ischemic conditioning (IPC) is a modified reperfusion technique and a neuroprotective method. It is potentially promising for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and can improve the outcome; however, the IPC technique has not been well defined. Methods: post-ischemic conditioning using neurointerventional strategies were defined in this prospective cohort. Consecutive patients treated with the IPC technique between January 1, 2022, and Jun 30, 2023, were included in this study. Patients' demographic and technical performance of the IPC procedure were recorded. Adverse events related to the IPC procedure were actively monitored and analyzed. Results: In total, 40 patients underwent IPC. Their mean age was 65 years (IQR, 34-83), and 72.5% were male. The median ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) was 7. The median of NIHSS was 13. The preset IPC program was achieved in 95.0% of cases, with 0% procedure-related mortality and 2.5% morbidity. The incidence of procedure-related dissection was 0%. The incidence of thrombotic events was 2.5%. Extravasation of contrast media was recorded as a serious adverse event. One thrombotic event occurred in the LAA Group. However, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of adverse events between the LAA and non-LAA groups. The LAA and MCA groups had shorter IPC procedure times compared with non-LAA and ICA groups. Conclusion: The IPC technique is safe and feasible with an acceptable complication rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".