MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157005609 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a1000

An Acute Ischemic Stroke Classification Instrument That Includes CT or MR Angiography: The Boston Acute Stroke Imaging Scale

2008· article· en· W2157005609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Torres-Mozqueda, Julian He, I.B. Yeh, Lee H. Schwamm, Michael H. Lev, Pamela W. Schaefer, R. Gilberto González

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)AngiographyRadiologyAcute strokeMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingIschemiaInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A simple classification instrument based on imaging that predicts outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke is lacking. We tested the hypotheses that the Boston Acute Stroke Imaging Scale (BASIS) classification instrument effectively predicts patient outcomes and is superior to the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) in predicting outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 230 prospectively screened, consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke, 87 had noncontrast CT (NCCT)/CT angiography (CTA), and 118 had MR imaging/MR angiography (MRA) at admission and were classified as having major stroke by BASIS criteria if they had a proximal cerebral artery occlusion or, if no occlusion, imaging evidence of significant parenchymal ischemia; all of the others were classified as minor strokes. Outcomes included death, length of hospitalization, and discharge disposition. BASIS was compared with ASPECTS (dichotomized > or <or=7) in 87 patients who had NCCT/CTA. RESULTS: BASIS classification by NCCT/CTA was equivalent to MR imaging/MRA. Fifty-six of 205 patients were classified as having major strokes including all 6 of the deaths. A total of 71.4% and 15.4% of major and minor stroke survivors, respectively, were discharged to a rehabilitation facility, whereas 14.3% and 79.2% of patients with major and minor strokes were discharged to home. The mean length of hospitalization was 12.3 and 3.3 days for the major and minor stroke groups, respectively (all outcomes, P < .0001). In 87 NCCT/CTA patients, BASIS and ASPECTS agreed in 22 major and 44 minor strokes. BASIS classified 21 patients as having major strokes who were classified as having minor strokes by ASPECTS. The BASIS major/ASPECTS minor stroke group had outcomes similar to those classified as major strokes by both instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The BASIS classification instrument is effective and appears superior to ASPECTS in predicting outcomes in acute ischemic stroke.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207