MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533663912 · doi:10.1111/jon.12176

Novel Approaches in Evaluating and Predicting the Potential Benefit of Middle Cerebral Artery Angioplasty & Stenting

2014· article· en· W1533663912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenjie Zi, Zili Gong, Jie Shuai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroimaging · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleRestenosisAngioplastyMiddle cerebral arteryStenosisStroke (engine)RadiologyInternal medicinePercutaneousCardiologyStentIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate a novel approach to perform preoperative evaluation patients who underwent middle cerebral artery (MCA) percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS). METHOD: Sixty-five patients with symptomatic MCA stenosis of at least >70% who underwent MCA PTAS were enrolled. The multimodal stroke assessment using CT (MOSAIC) score was used to evaluate the preoperative condition. The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scoring (ASPECTS) was used to assess the time-to-peak (TTP) parameter of Computer tomography perfusion (CTP). The factors potentially improving TTP following stenting were investigated. The prognostic value of the MOSAIC scores to predict TTP improvement was analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The MOSAIC score was a reliable prognostic tool for the degree of improvement of TTP (odds ratio 1.89 [1.08-2.07], P < .01) in patients with PTAS. The MOSAIC score had a higher prognostic accuracy than the degree of CBF deficit, the degree of stenosis, and the amount of tissue infarction. During 1-year follow-up, the stroke and death rate of was 8.1%, the in-stent restenosis rate was 6.5%, and good final outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 2) was observed in 76.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The MOSAIC score can be reliably used in selecting patients with MCA stenosis for PTAS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroimagingSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207