MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of four different collateral scores in acute ischemic stroke by CT angiography

2015· article· en· W2192665422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fatih Şeker, Arne Potreck, Markus Möhlenbruch, Martin Bendszus, Mirko Pham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngiographyStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeCollateral circulationAcute strokeCollateralRadiologyCardiologyCerebral angiographyInternal medicineIschemiaTissue plasminogen activatorFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Multiple scores have been described for the assessment of collateralization in acute ischemic stroke. Currently, there is no gold standard for collateral assessment by CT angiography (CTA). This study compared four frequently used collateral scores with regard to their correlation with early infarct core and mismatch ratio. METHODS: 30 consecutive patients with acute occlusion of the M1 segment or terminal carotid artery were reviewed retrospectively. Collaterals were assessed using dynamic and also single-phase CTA according to grading systems by the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology/Society of Interventional Radiology (ASITN/SIR), Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (on collaterals), Christoforidis et al and Miteff et al. The Christoforidis and ASITN/SIR scores, which were initially designed for conventional angiography, were adapted to be applicable to CTA. The scores were compared with respect to early infarct core and mismatch ratio in perfusion CT estimated by RAPID software using Spearman correlation. RESULTS: ASITN/SIR and ASPECTS collateral scores showed good correlation with early infarct core (rho=-0.696, p<0.001 and rho=-0.677, p<0.001) and mismatch ratio (rho=0.609, p<0.001 and rho=0.581, p<0.001). In contrast, the Christoforidis and Miteff scores correlated less well with infarct core (rho=0.245, p=0.191 and rho=-0.272, p=0.145, respectively) and mismatch ratio (rho=-0.329, p=0.075 and rho=0.279, p=0.135, respectively). ASPECTS and ASITN/SIR showed excellent cross-correlation (rho=0.901, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Christoforidis and Miteff scores, the modified ASITN/SIR and ASPECTS collateral scores showed consistently higher correlation with the extent of early infarct core and mismatch volume. This is probably because these scores evaluate the extent and delay of vascular enhancement in the affected territory rather than the backflow of contrast medium to the occlusion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207