MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006907749 · doi:10.1590/0004-282x20150037

Aspects correlates with Scandinavian Stroke Scale for predicting early neurological impairment

2015· article· en· W2006907749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gustavo José Luvizutto, Maicon Gonçalves Gabriel, Gabriel Pereira Braga, Thiago Dias Fernandes, Luiz Antônio de Lima Resende, Octávio Marques Pontes‐Neto, Rodrigo Bazán

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationScale (ratio)MedicineGeographyCartographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the correlation between the Alberta Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and the Scandinavian Stroke Scale (SSS) for the evaluation of neurological impairment in patients with acute stroke. METHOD: 59 patients with a first acute ischemic stroke were evaluated. The ASPECTS were evaluated by 2 neurologists at admission and by another neurologist after 48 hours. The NIHSS and SSS was applied to determinate stroke severity. Correlations and agreements were analysed statistically by Spearman and Kappa tests. RESULTS: ASPECTS was correlated with National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at admission (r = -0.52; p < 0.001) and SSS (r = 0.50; p < 0.001). The ASPECTS and SSS items were most correlated with arm (r = 0.52; p < 0.001) and hand (r = 0.49; p < 0.001) motor power, and speech (r = 0.51; p < 0.001). The SSS of 25.5 shows sensitivity (68%) and specificity (72%) when associated with ASPECTS ≤ 7. CONCLUSION: The SSS can predict worst neurological impairment when associated with lower values of ASPECTS.

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)0.006
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos de Neuro-PsiquiatriaSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207