Prediction of Recanalization Trumps Prediction of Tissue Fate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine whether infarct core or penumbra is the more significant predictor of outcome in acute ischemic stroke, and whether the results are affected by the statistical method used. METHODS: Clinical and imaging data were collected in 165 patients with acute ischemic stroke. We reviewed the noncontrast head computed tomography (CT) to determine the Alberta Score Program Early CT score and assess for hyperdense middle cerebral artery. We reviewed CT-angiogram for site of occlusion and collateral flow score. From perfusion-CT, we calculated the volumes of infarct core and ischemic penumbra. Recanalization status was assessed on early follow-up imaging. Clinical data included age, several time points, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at admission, treatment type, and modified Rankin score at 90 days. Two multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine which variables predicted outcome best. In the first analysis, we did not include recanalization status among the potential predicting variables. In the second, we included recanalization status and its interaction between perfusion-CT variables. RESULTS: Among the 165 study patients, 76 had a good outcome (modified Rankin score ≤2) and 89 had a poor outcome (modified Rankin score >2). In our first analysis, the most important predictors were age (P<0.001) and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at admission (P=0.001). The imaging variables were not important predictors of outcome (P>0.05). In the second analysis, when the recanalization status and its interaction with perfusion-CT variables were included, recanalization status and perfusion-CT penumbra volume became the significant predictors (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging prediction of tissue fate, more specifically imaging of the ischemic penumbra, matters only if recanalization can also be predicted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".