MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1672090054 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.198

Abstract 198: Relationship Between 24 Hour Infarct Volume And Clinical Outcomes In IMS 3

2015· article· en· W1672090054 on OpenAlexaff
Tudor G. Jovin, Mayank Goyal, Jayesh Modi, Andrew M. Demchuck, Michael D. Hill, Sherief Idrif, Aakash Mahajan, Ruediger von Kummer, Pooja Khatri, David S. Liebeskind, Thomas A. Tomsick, Joseph P. Broderick

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleOcclusionRandomizationStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicineNuclear medicineCardiologySurgeryIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Prospective, core lab adjudication of 24 hour post randomization head CT in IMS3 enabled analysis of the association between 24 hour infarct volume (24HRIV) and clinical outcomes in patients randomized to IV tPA alone or IV/IA approach. Methods: Manually calculated volumes of hypodense areas deemed acute and found within the affected territory on the IMS 3 follow-up CT scans expressed in cc were termed 24HRIV. These were correlated with several variables of interest in the IMS3 database including clinical outcomes expressed as modified Rankin score (mRS), baseline NIHSS (bNIHSS), follow-up NIHSS at 24 hours (fNIHSS), treatment allocation and occlusion location assessed on baseline CTA. Results: Of the 656 randomized patients, 502 (76.5%) had available 24HRIV’s and were included in the analysis. Good outcomes (defined as mRS 0-2) were noted in 197 (39.2%) of patients. Mean (median) 24HRIV in patients with favorable outcomes was 24.2 (12.2) cc vs. 115 (75.11) cc in those with unfavorable outcomes (p< 0.00001). A strong correlation was noted between the 24HRIV and clinical outcomes across the entire spectrum of the mRS scale (Figure1). Mean (median) 24HRIV’s were not significantly different in the IV vs IV/IA group 76.8 (34.5) vs 84.8 (37.8) cc, p= 0.38. No differences in 24HRIV were noted between IV and IV/IA groups in patients with ICA occlusion on baseline CTA (mean 24HRIV 125.8 vs 123.8 cc's respectively, p=0.9) or MCA occlusion (mean 24HRIV 54.4 vs 54.6 cc's respectively, p=0.9). A strong correlation was found between 24HRIV and fNIHSS (spearman rho=0.7, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In IMS 3, a significant correlation between 24 hour infarct volume on CT and clinical outcomes both at 24 hours and at 90 days was demonstrated. No significant differences in 24 hour infarct volumes were noted between the IV and the IV/IA group, suggesting that endovascular reperfusion strategies utilized during IMS3 overall lacked added effectiveness compared to IV t-PA alone.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→