Toward Patient-Tailored Perfusion Thresholds for Prediction of Stroke Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multiple patient-specific clinical and radiologic parameters impact traditional perfusion thresholds used to classify/determine tissue outcome. We sought to determine whether modified baseline perfusion thresholds calculated by integrating baseline perfusion and clinical factors better predict tissue fate and clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CTP within 4.5 hours of acute anterior circulation stroke onset and 5- to 7-day MR imaging were performed for 203 patients with stroke, divided into derivation (n = 114) and validation (n = 89) data bases. Affected regions were operationally classified as infarct and noninfarct according to baseline CTP and follow-up FLAIR imaging. Perfusion thresholds were derived for each of the infarct and noninfarct regions, without and with transformation by baseline clinical and radiologic variables by using a general linear mixed model. Performance of transformed and nontransformed perfusion thresholds for tissue fate and 90-day clinical outcome prediction was then tested in the derivation data base. Reproducibility of models was verified by using bootstrapping and validated in an independent cohort. RESULTS: Perfusion threshold transformation by clinical and radiologic baseline parameters significantly improved tissue fate prediction for both gray matter and white matter (P < .001). Transformed thresholds improved the 90-day outcome prediction for CBF and time-to-maximum (P < .001). Transformed relative CBF and absolute time-to-maximum values demonstrated maximal GM and WM accuracies in the derivation and validation cohorts (relative CBF GM: 91%, 86%; WM: 86%, 83%; absolute time-to-maximum 88%, 79%, and 80%, 76% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Transformation of baseline perfusion parameters by patient-specific clinical and radiologic parameters significantly improves the accuracy of tissue fate and clinical outcome prediction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".