MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6940220613 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4884096

Stroke patients treated by thrombectomy in real life differ from cohorts of the clinical trials: a prospective observational study

2020· other· en· W6940220613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Observational studyRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyCerebral infarctionClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment (ET) in anterior circulation large vessel occlusions (LVO). We aimed at investigating how stroke patients treated by thrombectomy in clinical practice and their outcome compare to cohorts and results of thrombectomy trials. Methods In a prospective study, we consecutively included stroke patients treated by thrombectomy (2015–2017). Baseline characteristics, procedural and outcome data were analyzed. Outcome was assessed by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days. Ordinal regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of outcome. Results Thrombectomy was applied in 264 patients (median 75 years, 49.6% female). Median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was 16, 58.0% received concomitant intravenous thrombolysis, 62.1% were referred from external hospitals. Median Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was 7. Successful recanalization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Score, mTICI 2b/3) was achieved in 72.0%. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) occurred in 4.5%. Independent outcome (mRS 0–2) was achieved in 26.2%, poor outcome (mRS 5–6) in 49.2%. Only 33.5% met the stringent enrolment criteria of previous RCTs. Lower age, baseline NIHSS, pre-stroke mRS, higher ASPECTS, and successful recanalization were independent predictors of favourable outcome. Conclusions The majority of stroke patients treated by ET in clinical practice would not have qualified for randomization in prior RCTs. Outcome in real-life patient cohorts is worse than in the highly selected cohorts from randomized trials, while rates of successful recanalization, sICH and outcome predictors are the same. Our findings support ET in broader patient populations than in the RCTs and may improve treatment decision in individual stroke patients with LVO in clinical practice.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→