DWI Reversal Is Associated with Small Infarct Volume in Patients with TIA and Minor Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: More than half of patients with TIA/minor stroke have ischemic lesions on early DWI, which represent irreversibly damaged tissue. The presence and volume of DWI lesions predict early deterioration in this population. We aimed to study the rate and implications of DWI reversal in patients with TIA/minor stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with TIA/minor stroke were prospectively enrolled and imaged within 24 hours of onset. Patients were followed for 3 months with repeat MR imaging either at day 30 or 90. Baseline DWI/PWI and follow-up FLAIR final infarct volumes were measured. RESULTS: Of 418 patients included, 55.5% had DWI and 37% had PWI (time-to-peak of the impulse response ≥2 seconds' delay) lesions at baseline. The median time from symptom onset to baseline and follow-up imaging was 13.4 (interquartile range, 12.7) and 78.73 hours (interquartile range, 60.2), respectively. DWI reversal occurred in 5.7% of patients. The median DWI lesion volume was significantly smaller in those with reversal (0.26 mL, interquartile range = 0.58 mL) compared with those without (1.29 mL, interquartile range = 3.6 mL, P = .002); 72.7% of DWI reversal occurred in cortically based lesions. Concurrent tissue hypoperfusion (time-to-peak of the impulse response ≥2 seconds) was seen in 36.4% of those with DWI reversal versus 62.4% without (P = .08). DWI reversal occurred in 3.3% of patients with penumbral patterns (time-to-peak of the impulse response ≥6 seconds - DWI) > 0 and in 6.8% of those without penumbral patterns (P = .3). The severity of hypoperfusion, defined as greater prolongation of time-to-peak of the impulse response (≥2, ≥4, ≥6, ≥8 seconds), did not affect the likelihood of DWI reversal (linear trend, P = .147). No patient with DWI reversal had an mRS score of ≥2 at 90 days versus 18.2% of those without reversal (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: DWI reversal is uncommon in patients with TIA/minor stroke and is more likely to occur in those with smaller baseline lesions. DWI reversal should not have a significant effect on the accuracy of penumbra definition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".