MECHANICAL THROMBECTOMY (MT) AND LOW ALBERTA STROKE PROTOCOL PROGRAMME EARLY CT SCORE (ASPECTS). EXPERIENCE IN A COMPREHENSIVE STROKE CENTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVEMT indication in ischemic strokes with ASPECTS minor or equal to 5 is controversial, reaching only IIB grade recommendation in STROKE guidelines. That is because of the lack of patients with low ASPECTS in clinical trials (CT), being included only by MR CLEAN CT. Nevertheless, some retrospective series and the preliminary data of TENSION CT might suggest some clinical benefit to these patients. METHODSRestrospective descriptive and comparative analysis of prognostic items in patients with ischemic stroke due to anterior territory large vessel oclusion treated with MT, being divided in those with low ASPECTS (minor to 6) and favourable ASPECTS (7 or more). SPSS 22.0 and statistical test Xu00b2 are used.RESULTS13 of 140 patients analysed had ASPECTS minor to 6. Eight patients scored 5, four patients scored 4 and one patient scored 3. We did not find statistical differences in demographic characterictics, previous treatment, ocluded vessel or recanalization rate between the groups.Modified Rankin Scale (mRs) showed statistical tendency to be worse in low ASPECTS group, although it did not reach statistical significance. In the same way, no statistical differences were found in symptomatic hemorrhage or mortality.CONCLUSIONMT in patients with ischemic stroke and ASPECTS minor to 6 seems to be as safe as if done in patients with favourable ASPECTS. We did not find difference in clinical outcome (mRs) between the groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".