MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1543214049 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.tp34

Abstract T P34: Poor Collateral Circulation Assessed By Multiphase Cta Predicts Malignant Mca Evolution After Reperfusion Therapies

2015· article· en· W1543214049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alan Flores, Marta Rubiera, Jorge Pagola, David Rodríguez‐Luna, Marián Muchada, Sandra Boned Riera, L. Seró Ballesteros, Pilar Meler, Stela Sanjuan, Daniel Cárcamo, Estevo Santamarina, Alejandro Tomasello, Pilar Coscojuela, Miguel Lemus, Vanessa Carvalho, David de Bonadona, Rafael Ponciano, Bijoy K. Menon, Mayank Goyal, Carlos A. Molina

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCollateral circulationTIMIOcclusionInternal medicineStroke (engine)CardiologyMyocardial infarctionRadiologyThrombolysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Collateral circulation (CC) has been associated with recanalization, infarct volume, risk of haemorrhagic transformation and clinical outcome in patients undergoing acute reperfusion therapies. However, its relationship with the development to malignant MCA infarction (mMCAi) has not been evaluated. Our aim was determine the impact of collateral circulation using multiphase CTA (mCTA) on acute phase in the prediction of mMCAi. Methods: Consecutive acute stroke <4.5h patients that were evaluated for reperfusion therapies and with a M1-MCA or TICA occlusion by CTA were included. CC was evaluated on mCTA, CC evaluation was performed according to the University Calgary CC Scale; CC was also classified as poor (grades 0-3) or good (grades 4-5). The mMCAi was defined according to previously published clinical and radiological criteria. Recanalization was assessed with TCD at 24-hours and TICI score≥2a in endovascular treatment (ET) patients. Good outcome was defined as mRS 0-2 at 3months. Results: 82 patients were included. Mean age: 65.1 ±13.83 years, median baseline NIHSS 18(IQR 5.7), 67.9% M1 and 32.1% TICA occlusions, 53 patients received ET and 57 iv tPA, 15 patients develop a mMCAi. In the univariate analysis, patients with mMCAi had lower CC scores (2.29 Vs. 3.71 p=0.001), higher baseline NIHSS (19.86 Vs. 15.70 p=0.016), lower TIMI reperfusion scores (0 Vs. 2.79 p=00.5) and presence of TICA occlusion was more often compared with M1 occlusion (71% Vs. 11.9%, p=0.033) ET was associated with lower rate of mMCAi development as compared with only i.v. reperfusion treatment (9.4%Vs.29.6%, p=0.028). Furthermore, all patients with poor CC who did not recanalize developed mMCAi (6 Vs. 0, p=0.68) On the multivariate analysis adjusted to age, vessel occlusion, baseline NIHSS and recanalization, the presence of poor CC by mCTA was the only independent predictor of mMCAi (p=0.048 OR: 9.72, 95%IC: 1.387-92.53) Conclusion: CC assessment by mCTA independently predicts malignant MCA progression. In patients with persistent occlusion after reperfusion therapies, the presence of poor CC may help in the early malignant MCA detection and management.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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