Comparison of two imaging protocols for acute stroke: Unenhanced cranial CT versus a multimodality cranial CT protocol with perfusion imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to validate a multimodality cranial computed tomography (CCT) protocol for patients with acute stroke in the United Arab Emirates as a basic imaging procedure for a stroke unit. Therefore, a comparative study was conducted between two groups: retrospective, historical group 1 with early unenhanced CCT and prospective group 2 undergoing a multimodality CCT protocol. Follow-up unenhanced CCT>48 h served as gold standard in both groups. Group 1: Early unenhanced CCT of 50 patients were evaluated retrospectively, using Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, and compared with the definite infarction on follow-up CCT. Group 2: 50 patients underwent multimodality CCT (unenhanced CCT, perfusion studies: cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, mean transit time and CT angiography)<8 h after clinical onset and follow-up studies. Modified National Institute of Health Stroke Scale was used clinically in both groups. Group 1 showed 38 men, 12 women, clinical onset 2-8 h before CCT and modified National Institute of Health Stroke Scale 0-28. Group 2 included 38 men, 12 women, onset 3-8 h before CCT, modified National Institute of Health Stroke Scale 0-28. Sensitivity was 58.3% in group 1 and 84.2% in group 2. Computed tomography angiography detected nine intracranial occlusions/stenoses. The higher sensitivity of the multimodality CCT protocol justifies its use as a basic diagnostic tool for the set-up of a first-stroke unit in the United Arab Emirates.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".