MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039331682 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.114.007544

Blood–Brain Barrier Compromise Does Not Predict Perihematoma Edema Growth in Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2015· article· en· W2039331682 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca McCourt, Bronwen Gould, Mahesh Kate, Negar Asdaghi, Jayme C. Kosior, Shelagh Coutts, Michael D. Hill, Andrew M. Demchuk, Thomas Jeerakathil, Derek Emery, Kenneth Butcher

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageHematomaEdemaAnesthesiaRandomizationInterquartile rangeComputed tomographicCerebral edemaPerfusion scanningPerfusionRandomized controlled trialNuclear medicineSurgeryCardiologyGlasgow Coma ScaleComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There are limited data on the extent of blood-brain barrier (BBB) compromise in acute intracerebral hemorrhage patients. We tested the hypotheses that BBB compromise measured with permeability-surface area product (PS) is increased in the perihematoma region and predicts perihematoma edema growth in acute intracerebral hemorrhage patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment of <150 (n=26) or <180 mm Hg (n=27). Permeability maps were generated using computed tomographic perfusion source data acquired 2 hours after randomization, and mean PS was measured in the hematoma, perihematoma, and hemispheric regions. Hematoma and edema volumes were measured on noncontrast computed tomographic scans obtained at baseline, 2 hours and 24 hours after randomization. RESULTS: Patients were randomized at a median (interquartile range) time of 9.3 hours (14.1) from symptom onset. Treatment groups were balanced with respect to baseline SBP and hematoma volume. Perihematoma PS (5.1±2.4 mL/100 mL per minute) was higher than PS in contralateral regions (3.6±1.7 mL/100 mL per minute; P<0.001). Relative edema growth (0-24 hours) was not predicted by perihematoma PS (β=-0.192 [-0.06 to 0.01]) or SBP change (β=-0.092 [-0.002 to 0.001]). SBP was lower in the <150 target group (139.2±22.1 mm Hg) than in the <180 group (159.7±12.3 mm Hg; P<0.0001). Perihematoma PS was not different between groups (4.9±2.4 mL/100 mL per minute for the <150 group, 5.3±2.4 mL/100 mL per minute for the <180 group; P=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: BBB permeability is focally increased in the hematoma and perihematoma regions of acute intracerebral hemorrhage patients. BBB compromise does not predict acute perihematoma edema volume or edema growth. SBP reduction does not affect BBB permeability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00963976.

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207