MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1515030632 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.53

Abstract 53: Multimodal CT Imaging: Time to Treatment and Outcomes in the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III Trial

2015· article· en· W1515030632 on OpenAlexaff
Achala Vagal, Lydia D. Foster, Bijoy K. Menon, Anthony Livorine, Junzi Shi, Emmad Qazi, Andrew M. Demchuk, Sharon D. Yeatts, Michael D. Hill, Thomas A. Tomsick, Mayank Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerfusion scanningStroke (engine)GroinBolus (digestion)Nuclear medicineRadiologyDemographicsEndovascular treatmentPerfusionInternal medicineSurgeryAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The importance of time in acute stroke is well established. Using the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III trial data, we explored the effect of imaging on time to treatment and outcomes for subjects those receiving multimodal imaging [CT angiogram (CTA) + CT perfusion (CTP) versus CTA alone] versus those who did not. Materials and Methods: Multimodal CT was not a prerequisite for IMS III entry .We examined 3 subgroups; those with baseline CTA alone, CTA + CTP, versus those with no CTA or CTP. The baseline demographics and imaging and treatment time parameters of these 3 subgroups were studied. Results: Of the 656 subjects enrolled, 98 (14.9%) underwent baseline (pre-IV t-PA treatment) CTA+CTP. 8 out of these 98 patients received only CTP. 216 (32.9%) received CTA alone and 342 (52.1%) had neither. Time parameters for the CTA+CTP, CTA alone, and no CTA/CTP groups were as follows: median from stroke onset to IV t-PA (120.5 vs. 117.5 vs 120 min; p=0.5869), median IV t-PA bolus to groin puncture (GP) (78 vs. 81 vs. 91 min; p=0.0043) and median GP to start of endovascular therapy (EVT) (31 vs. 38 vs. 44 min; p=0.0001). Pairwise comparison demonstrated no significant difference in time from IV tPA to GP and time from GP to IA therapy between CTA+CTP and CTA alone groups (p=0. 9883 and p=0.1421, respectively). With removal of drip n’ ship subjects, no statistical differences were seen between groups for time from onset to IV t-PA bolus (p=0.5509) or time from imaging to GP (p=0.8459). Time from GP to start of EVT was still shorter in the CTA+CTP and CTA alone paradigms (p =0.0019). In the IV t-PA treatment arm, no differences in 90d mRS 0-2 outcome were seen in the 3 subgroups (36.4% versus 40.9% versus 38.2%; p=0.8941). In the EVT arm, differences in good outcome were seen (38.5% versus 52.0% versus 33.8%; p=0.0020). CTA alone remained strongly associated with good outcomes in EVT arm (adjusted OR, 2.117; 95% CI, 1.35- 3.30), irrespective of age, stroke severity and time from onset to IV tPA initiation. Conclusion: Multimodal imaging did not delay treatment times in IMS III. The CTA alone group was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in the endovascular arm. The CTA+CTP paradigm resulted in worse outcome over the CTA alone paradigm in the endovascular arm.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→