Endovascular treatment plus placebo versus endovascular treatment plus intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke with occlusion of the M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery: a multicenter randomized clinical trial: the M-TWO Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND For patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes, it is unknown whether endovascular treatment (EVT) treatment alone compared with intravenous thrombolysis plus EVT (standard treatment) can achieve similar functional and safety outcomes. OBJECTIVES To investigate whether EVT plus placebo is non-inferior to intravenous thrombolysis followed by EVT for achieving functional independence at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) among patients with acute ischemic stroke with occlusion of the M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery (MCA). Secondary objectives to assess efficacy include investigating recanalization rates and final infarct volume at 72h measured by diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Secondary objectives to assess safety include symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH), any intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), any other haemorrhages and mortality rates. METHODS Randomized, multicentric, prospective, double-blind, non-inferiority, controlled clinical trial. Intervention will be performed internationally in 50 stroke centres from Europe, USA and Canada
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".