Cerebral Perfusion and Blood Pressure Do Not Affect Perihematoma Edema Growth in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The pathogenesis of perihematoma edema in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is unknown but has been hypothesized to be ischemic. In the ICH Acutely Decreasing Arterial Pressure Trial (ICH ADAPT), perihematoma cerebral blood flow (CBF) was reduced but was unaffected by blood pressure (BP) reduction. Using ICH ADAPT data, we tested the hypotheses that edema growth is associated with reduced CBF and lower systolic BP. METHODS: Noncontrast computed tomographic scans in patients with ICH were obtained at baseline, 2 hours, and 24 hours after randomization to target systolic BPs of <150 or <180 mm Hg. Computed tomography perfusion imaging was performed at 2 hours, and mean relative CBF was calculated in visibly edematous perihematoma tissue. Edema volumes were measured using a Hounsfield unit threshold of 5 to 23 at each time-point. RESULTS: Patients were randomized at a median (interquartile range) of 7.4 (12.8) hours after onset. Treatment groups (n=34, <150 and n=33, <180 target) were balanced with respect to baseline systolic BP and acute ICH volume. Relative edema growth at 24 hours in the <150 group (0.11±0.19) was similar to that in the <180 group (0.09±0.16 mL; P=0.727). Absolute CBF was lower in the edematous region (35.67±13.1 mL/100 g per minute) when compared with that in the contralateral tissue (43.7±11.7 mL/100 g per minute; P<0.0001). Linear regression indicated that neither systolic BP change (β=-0.022; 95% confidence interval, -0.002 to 0.001) nor perihematoma relative CBF (β=-0.144; 95% confidence interval, -0.647 to 0.167) predicted edema growth. CONCLUSIONS: Lower perihematoma CBF and BP treatment do not exacerbate edema growth. These data do not support a cytotoxic edema pathogenesis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00963976.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".