Gray-Matter Volume Estimate Score: A Novel Semi-Automatic Method Measuring Early Ischemic Change on CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We developed a novel method named Gray-matter Volume Estimate Score (GRAVES), measuring early ischemic changes on Computed Tomography (CT) semi-automatically by computer software. This study aimed to compare GRAVES and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) with regards to outcome prediction and inter-rater agreement. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Among consecutive patients with ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation who received intra-arterial therapy (IAT), those with a readable pretreatment CT were included. Two stroke neurologists independently measured both the GRAVES and ASPECTS. GRAVES was defined as the percentage of estimated hypodense lesion in the gray matter of the ipsilateral hemisphere. Spearman correlation analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) comparison test, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) comparison tests were performed between GRAVES and ASPECTS. RESULTS: Ninety-four subjects (age: 68.7±10.3; male: 54 [54.9%]) were enrolled. The mean GRAVES was 9.0±8.9 and the median ASPECTS was 8 (interquartile range, 6-9). Correlation between ASPECTS and GRAVES was good (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, 0.642; P<0.001). ROC comparison analysis showed that the predictive value of GRAVES for favorable outcome was not significantly different from that of ASPECTS (area under curve, 0.765 vs. 0.717; P=0.308). ICC comparison analysis revealed that inter-rater agreement of GRAVES was significantly better than that of ASPECTS (0.978 vs. 0.895; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GRAVES had a good correlation with ASPECTS. GRAVES was as good as ASPECTS in predicting a favorable clinical outcome, but was better than ASPECTS regarding inter-rater agreement. GRAVES may be used to predict the outcome of IAT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".