Endovascular treatment vs. best medical management for late window ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundTo compare the benefit of endovascular treatment(EVT) in acute ischemic stroke(AIS) patients with large vessel occlusion(LVO) presenting > 6 h from last known well outside a clinical trial setting to best medical management and to EVT in a randomized trial setting.MethodsData from a retrospective multicenter cohort study (ESCAPE-LATE) of AIS-LVO patients treated with EVT beyond 6 hours from last known well at former ESCAPE trial sites were pooled with historical data from ESCAPE trial late time window patients. Unadjusted and adjusted 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score was compared between ESCAPE-LATE patients, ESCAPE late time window EVT arm and control arm patients.ResultsA total of 249 patients were included in the analysis: 200 ESCAPE-LATE patients (for 141 of whom 90-day clinical outcomes were available) and 49 ESCAPE patients, for all of whom clinical outcome data were available (control arm: 20 and EVT arm: 29). Good clinical outcome (mRS 0-2 at 90 days) was nominally, albeit not significantly, lower in patients not treated with EVT (5/19[26.3%]) as compared to ESCAPE EVT arm patients (13/29[44.8%] and ESCAPE-LATE patients (66/141[46.8%]). After adjustment, a graded mRS pattern was seen, whereby patients treated with EVT did better as compared to non-treated patients, and those who underwent EVT in the ESCAPE trial had better mRS as compared to those included in ESCAPE-LATE who underwent EVT in clinical routine.ConclusionPatients presenting beyond 6 hours from last known well who are treated with EVT in a real-world setting show comparable benefit to patients treated in a clinical trial setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".