MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161703502 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.113.003194

Cerebral Perfusion and Blood Pressure Do Not Affect Perihematoma Edema Growth in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2014· article· en· W2161703502 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca McCourt, Bronwen Gould, Laura Gioia, Mahesh Kate, Shelagh B. Coutts, Dar Dowlatshahi, Negar Asdaghi, Thomas Jeerakathil, Michael D. Hill, Andrew M. Demchuk, Brian Buck, Derek Emery, Kenneth Butcher

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeEdemaIntracerebral hemorrhageCerebral blood flowAnesthesiaBlood pressurePerfusionHounsfield scaleRandomizationMean arterial pressureCardiologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineSurgeryHeart rateSubarachnoid hemorrhageComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207