MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time Dependence of Reliability of Noncontrast Computed Tomography in Comparison to Computed Tomography Angiography Source Image in Acute Ischemic Stroke

2012· article· en· W2019002603 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simerpreet Bal, Rohit Bhatia, Bijoy K. Menon, Nandavar Shobha, Volker Puetz, Imanuel Dzialowski, Jayesh Modi, Mayank Goyal, Michael D. Hill, Eric E. Smith, Andrew M. Demchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)AngiographyComputed tomography angiographyRadiologyComputed tomographyInternal carotid arteryReliability (semiconductor)Ischemic strokeCohortTomographyCardiologyIschemiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is no consensus on how the reliability and predictive ability of noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) and computed tomography angiography source image (CTASI) change over time from acute ischemic stroke onset. We hypothesized that the reliability for detecting early ischemic changes (EIC) would be lower in early time periods and that changes identified on CTASI would be more reliable across examiners than changes identified on NCCT. To address this, we compared the relationships between CTASI, NCCT, and final infarct in patients with initial computed tomography (CT) imaging at different time points after stroke onset. Patients with acute ischemic stroke with proximal anterior circulation occlusions (internal carotid artery, middle carotid artery M1, proximal M2) from Calgary CT Angiography (CTA) database were studied. The cohort was categorized in four groups based on time from stroke onset to baseline NCCT/CTA: 0-90 mins (n = 69), 91-180 mins (n = 88), 181-360 mins (n = 46), and >360 mins (n = 58). Median scores of NCCT-Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), CTASI ASPECTS, and follow-up ASPECTS among different time categories were compared. To determine reliability, a subsample of NCCT brain and CTASI were interpreted at separate sessions weeks apart by two neuroradiologists and two stroke neurologists in random order. Median and mean ASPECTS ratings on NCCT and CTASI were higher than final ASPECTS in each time category (P < 0·001 for all comparisons). CTASI ASPECTS was lower than NCCT ASPECTS in each time category, and differences were significant at 0-90 mins and 91-180 mins (P < 0·001). The least agreement among readers was in detection of EIC on NCCT brain in the ultra-early phase (<90 mins) [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0·48. By contrast, there was excellent agreement on EIC on CTASI regardless of time period (ICC = 0·87-0·96). Using ASPECTS methodology, CTASI is more reliable than NCCT at predicting final infarct extent particularly in the early time windows.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207