MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PREDICTORS OF POOR OUTCOME AFTER THROMBECTOMY IN ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE PATIENTS

2017· other· en· W6927589899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModified Rankin ScaleLogistic regressionStroke (engine)Blood pressureMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisIschemic strokeOutcome (game theory)Acute stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Timely and effective recanalization of the occluded vessel is of importance for acute ischemic stroke patients. However, Successful recanalization (SR) is not always associated with good prognosis. We aimed to explore predictive factors of poor outcome of successful recanalization after thrombectomy in patients with acute anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion.Method: Between January 2016 and October 2018, the eligible patients with SR were retrospectively enrolled. Poor outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 3 to 6 at 90 days. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to explore risk factors of poor outcome.Results: We enrolled 76 patients with SR (mean age: 64.34 u00b1 14.90, 46 males). The proportion of patients with poor outcome was 57.9% (44/76). The multivariable logistic regression showed systolic blood pressure (SBP) (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P=0.041), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; P=0.007 ), and blood glucose levels (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.09u20132.96; P=0.022 ) were the predictive factors of poor outcome, while baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was the protective factor. (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33u20130.73; P<0.001). Conclusion: High SBP, high NIHSS, high blood glucose and low ASPECTS were associated with poor outcome despite successful recanalization after thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Further large sample studies are needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207