Googling Stroke ASPECTS to Determine Disability: Exploratory Analysis from VISTA-Acute Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The summed Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is useful for predicting stroke outcome. The anatomical information in the CT template is rarely used for this purpose because traditional regression methods are not adept at handling collinearity (relatedness) among brain regions. While penalized logistic regression (PLR) can handle collinearity, it does not provide an intuitive understanding of the interaction among network structures in a way that eigenvector method such as PageRank can (used in Google search engine). In this exploratory analysis we applied graph theoretical analysis to explore the relationship among ASPECTS regions with respect to disability outcome. The Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA) was searched for patients who had infarct in at least one ASPECTS region (ASPECTS ≤ 9, ASPECTS = 10 were excluded), and disability (modified Rankin score/mRS). A directed graph was created from a cross correlation matrix (thresholded at false discovery rate of 0.01) of the ASPECTS regions and demographic variables and disability (mRS > 2). We estimated the network-based importance of each ASPECTS region by comparing PageRank and node strength measures. These results were compared with those from PLR. There were 185 subjects, average age 67.5 ± 12.8 years (55% Males). Model 1: demographic variables having no direct connection with disability, the highest PageRank was M2 (0.225, bootstrap 95% CI 0.215-0.347). Model 2: demographic variables having direct connection with disability, the highest PageRank were M2 (0.205, bootstrap 95% CI 0.194-0.367) and M5 (0.125, bootstrap 95% CI 0.096-0.204). Both models illustrate the importance of M2 region to disability. The PageRank method reveals complex interaction among ASPECTS regions with respects to disability. This approach may help to understand the infarcted brain network involved in stroke disability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".