Effect of Collaterals on Clinical Presentation, Baseline Imaging, Complications, and Outcome in Acute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Good CTA collaterals independently predict good outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Our aim was to evaluate the role of collateral circulation and its added benefit over CTP-derived total ischemic volume as a predictor of baseline NIHSS score, total ischemic volume, hemorrhagic transformation, final infarct size, and a modified Rankin Scale score >2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 395 patients with stroke dichotomized by recanalization (recanalization positive/recanalization negative) and collateral status. Clot burden score was quantified on baseline CTA. Total ischemic volumes were derived from thresholded CTP maps. Final infarct size was assessed on follow-up CT/MRI. We performed uni-/multivariate analyses for each outcome, adjusting for rtPA status, using general linear (continuous variables) and logistic (binary variables) regression. Model comparison with collateral score and total ischemic volume was performed using the F or likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Collateral presence independently and inversely predicted all outcomes except hemorrhagic transformation in patients who were recanalization negative and mRS >2 in patients who were recanalization positive. The greatest collateral benefit occurred in patients who were recanalization negative, contributing 16.5% and 19.2% of the variability for final infarct size and mRS >2. The collateral score model is superior to the total ischemic volume for mRS >2 prediction, but a combination of total ischemic volume and collateral score is superior for mRS >2 and final infarct prediction (24% and 28% variability, respectively). In patients who were recanalization positive, a model including collateral score and total ischemic volume was superior to that of total ischemic volume for hemorrhagic transformation and final infarct prediction but was muted compared with patients who were recanalization negative (11.3% and 16.9% variability). CONCLUSIONS: Collateral circulation is an independent predictor of all outcomes, but the magnitude of significance varies, greater in patients who were recanalization negative versus recanalization positive. Total ischemic volume assessment is complementary to collateral score in many cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".