MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predicting Functional Outcome After Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis: Aspects of ASPECTS

2003· letter· en· W2006472590 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Saposnik

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisOutcome (game theory)CardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor:I read with great interest the article by Dr Hill and colleagues about using the ASPECTS score in patients who received intra-arterial thrombolysis.1,2 ASPECTS is a validated score that identifies those patients with acute stroke who can benefit from intravenous thrombolysis.It assesses 10 regions of the brain on the CT scans and assigns a score of 1 for a normal region and 0 for an area showing signs of ischemia.2,3 In addition, ASPECTS also helps predict the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ORϭ14; CI 1.8 to 117). 2 This time, the authors assessed the baseline and 24-hour CT scans of patients enrolled in the PROACT II study using the ASPECTS score. 1 PROACT II was a clinical trial that randomized acute stroke patients with documented middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusion, Ͻ6 hours of symptoms onset, to receive 9 mg intra-arterial recombinant pro-urokinase (r-proUK) plus heparin or heparin alone.In summary, Dr Hill and his colleagues evaluated if ASPECTS could predict the benefit from the treatment with intra-arterial thrombolysis.The authors compared the risk ratios for outcomes between proUK versus control groups stratified by a baseline ASPECTS score (Ͼ7 and Ͻ7).They defined primary (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] scoreϭ0 to 2) and secondary outcomes (mRSϭ0 to 1, NIHSS scoreϭ0 to 1, Barthel Indexϭ0 to 1, mortality rate), as in their former article.3 They found a statistically significant difference exclusively in the primary outcome between the treatment and control groups, only in those patients with ASPECTS Ͼ7.They stated that "the results from the present study support the concept that the use of ASPECTS can identify stroke patients with MCA occlusion who will receive particular benefit from intra-arterial thrombolysis."ASPECTS is a useful tool with practical implications in the decision whether to give intravenous tissue plasminogen activator.However, it has limitations.First, (1) it applies only to specific areas of the brain.As the authors stated, this score is not applicable to lacunar strokes, ischemic changes in the anterior and posterior cerebral arteries, or brain stem infarctions.(2) The thrombolytic drug used in PROACT II was r-proUK.This drug has not been approved by the FDA and is not available for clinical use. 4 Second, subgroup analyses are prone to bias.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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