MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124311899

RELIABILITY OF PERSIAN EARLY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCORE IN PATIENTS WITH BRAIN INFARCTION

2008· article· en· W2124311899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kavian Ghandehari, Mohammad Taghi Shakeri, Mehdi Mohammadifard, Alireza Ehsanbakhsh, Mahyar Mohammadifard, Ali Reza Mirgholami

Bibliographic record

VenueIranian journal of medical sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComputed tomographyStroke (engine)Middle cerebral arteryNuclear medicineKappaInfarctionTomographyRadiologyIschemiaCardiologyMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The one-third middle cerebral artery (1/3 MCA) method and Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) were used to detect significant early ischemic changes on brain computed tomography (CT) of patients with acute stroke. We designed the Persian Early CT Score (PECTS) and compared it with the above systems. Methods: The tomograms were chosen from the stroke data bank of Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad, in 2008. The inclusion criteria were the presence of MCA territory infarction and performance of CT within 6 hours after stroke onset. Axial CTs were performed on a third-generation CT scanner (Siemens, ARTX, Germany). Section thickness above posterior fossa was 10 mm (130 kV, 150 mAs). Films were made at window level 35 HU. The brain CTs were scored by four independent radiologists based on the ASPECTS, 1/3 MCA method, and PECTS. The readers were blinded to the clinical information except the symptom side. Cochrane Q and Kappa tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Twenty four CT scans with sufficient quality were available. The difference in distribution of dichotomized ≤7 and >7 ASPECT scores between the four raters was significant; Q=13.071, df=3, P=0.04. The difference in distribution of dichotomized >1/3 and ≤1/3 MCA territory involvement between 4 raters was also significant; Q=13.5, df=3, P=0.004. Distribution of dichotomized <6 and ≥6 scores based on PECTS system between the four raters was not different; Q=6.349, df=3, P=0.096.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIranian journal of medical sciencesSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207