MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Imaging‐based selection in acute ischemic stroke trials – a quest for imaging sweet spots

2012· review· en· W1485584200 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Demchuk, Bijoy K. Menon, Mayank Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Acute strokeRadiologyPerfusion scanningIschemiaDiffusion imagingOcclusionLimitingMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyDiffusion MRIInternal medicinePerfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic stroke is a very heterogeneous disease that limits the efficacy of acute stroke treatments. Future trials will require advanced imaging to select patients for specific treatments. The most well-established imaging tools are the use of CT to exclude hemorrhage and diffusion-weighted MRI to demonstrate ischemia. While perfusion imaging is one option for patient selection, it has unresolved issues, including standardization and validation, that limit its value. As an alternative to mismatch when addressing stroke, one needs to know the size of the initial irreversible lesion (core), the presence and site/extent of occlusion (clot), and presence of leptomeningeal back filling and Willisian filling (collaterals). These can be summarized as the "3C" approach of core, clot, and collateral interpretation, which together can represent an imaging sweet spot, particularly for time-efficient endovascular treatment trial design.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→