Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Magnetic resonance imaging profiles predict clinical response to early reperfusion: The diffusion and perfusion imaging evaluation for understanding stroke evolution (DEFUSE) study

Albers, Gregory W., Thijs, Vincent N., Wechsler, Lawrence, Kemp, Stephanie, Schlaug, Gottfried, Skalabrin, Elaine, Bammer, Roland, Kakuda, Wataru, Lansberg, Maarten G., Shuaib, Ashfaq, Coplin, William, Hamilton, Scott, Moseley, Michael, Marks, Michael P.·2006·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether prespecified baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) profiles can identify stroke patients who have a robust clinical response after early reperfusion when treated 3 to 6 hours after symptom onset. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study of 74 consecutive stroke patients admitted to academic stroke centers in North America and Europe. An MRI scan was obtained immediately before and 3 to 6 hours after treatment with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator 3 to 6 hours after symptom onset. Baseline MRI profiles were used to categorize patients into subgroups, and clinical responses were compared based on whether early reperfusion was achieved. Results: Early reperfusion was associated with significantly increased odds of achieving a favorable clinical response in patients with a perfusion/diffusion mismatch (odds ratio, 5.4; p = 0.039) and an even more favorable response in patients with the Target Mismatch profile (odds ratio, 8.7; p = 0.011). Patients with the No Mismatch profile did not appear to benefit from early reperfusion. Early reperfusion was associated with fatal intracranial hemorrhage in patients with the Malignant profile. Interpretation: For stroke patients treated 3 to 6 hours after onset, baseline MRI findings can identify subgroups that are likely to benefit from reperfusion therapies and can potentially identify subgroups that are unlikely to benefit or may be harmed. Ann Neurol 2006

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.20976

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,268

Metadata

Authors
Albers, G. W., Thijs, V. N., Wechsler, L., Kemp, S., Schlaug, G., Skalabrin, E., Bammer, R., Kakuda, W., Lansberg, M. G., Shuaib, A., Coplin, W., Hamilton, S., Moseley, M., & Marks, M. P.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-10-25
Volume
60
Issue
5
Pages
508-517
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W1973913902
Cited by
1,268
References
1
FWCI
56.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Magnetic resonance imaging profiles predict clinical response to early reperfusion: The diffusion and perfusion imaging evaluation for understanding stroke evolution (DEFUSE) study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.20976
The paper
Albers, G. W., Thijs, V. N., Wechsler, L., Kemp, S., Schlaug, G., Skalabrin, E., Bammer, R., Kakuda, W., Lansberg, M. G., Shuaib, A., Coplin, W., Hamilton, S., Moseley, M., & Marks, M. P. (2006). Magnetic resonance imaging profiles predict clinical response to early reperfusion: The diffusion and perfusion imaging evaluation for understanding stroke evolution (DEFUSE) study. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20976

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.