MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How well does ASPECTS predict the outcome of acute stroke treated with IV tPA?

2006· article· en· W1993071243 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicolas U. Weir, J. H. Warwick Pexman, Michael D. Hill, Alastair M. Buchan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisMedicineStroke (engine)CardiologyOutcome (game theory)Internal medicineIschemic strokeAcute strokeIschemiaTissue plasminogen activatorMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors measured the association of early ischemic change on CT scan, measured using the Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT score (ASPECTS), and functional outcome in 825 patients with anterior circulation stroke treated with IV thrombolysis within 3 hours of onset. ASPECTS predicted outcome in a graded fashion (linearly for ASPECTS 6 through 10; pattern ill-defined for ASPECTS 0 through 5) but discriminated individual outcomes weakly. Except perhaps when early ischemic change is extensive, clinicians should not estimate prognosis using ASPECTS 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 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)0.000
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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207