MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416199560 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.125.050401

Acute Management of Medium Vessel Occlusion Stroke: New Evidence and a Path Forward

2025· article· en· W4416199560 on OpenAlexaff
William K. Diprose, Umberto Pensato, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Marios‐Nikos Psychogios, Urs Fischer, Frédéric Clarençon, René Chapot, Wei Hu, Thanh N. Nguyen, Shinichi Yoshimura, Kazutaka Uchida, Bernard Yan, Bijoy K. Menon, Mayank Goyal, Michael D. Hill, Johanna M. Ospel

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute strokeStroke (engine)InterimClinical trialArtifact (error)OcclusionHarmInterim analysisBest evidence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute stroke due to medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) accounts for 25% to 40% of all acute ischemic stroke cases and is associated with substantial morbidity despite current best medical management. This motivated several recently published and ongoing trials that investigate(d) the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for MeVO stroke. Two of these trials have been published, an interim analysis of a third has been presented, and a fourth will be presented soon. The available trial results suggest no difference in outcomes between EVT and best medical management, and a possibility of harm with EVT. Preliminary post hoc analyses have however identified promising patient subgroups that may derive benefit from EVT. Improving EVT tools and techniques, together with adjunctive treatments, may further increase the technical efficacy of MeVO EVT. This review summarizes clinical and imaging features of MeVO stroke, reviews current evidence for medical and endovascular treatment, discusses recent MeVO EVT trial results, and outlines possible pathways forward for future MeVO trials.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207