MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280312633 · doi:10.1161/str.43.suppl_1.a95

Abstract 95: Regional Very Low Cerebral Blood Volume with Subsequent Local Reperfusion Predicts Hemorrhagic Transformation in Acute Ischemic Stroke

2012· article· en· W2280312633 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Campbell, Søren Christensen, Mark Parsons, Patricia Desmond, P. Alan Barber, Kenneth Butcher, Christopher Levi, Deidre Anne De Silva, Maarten G. Lansberg, Michael Mlynash, Jean‐Marc Olivot, Matús Straka, Roland Bammer, Gregory W. Albers, Geoffrey A. Donnan, Stephen M. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)PerfusionPerfusion scanningCardiologyNuclear medicinePenumbraCerebral blood flowInternal medicineReceiver operating characteristicIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose Regions of very low cerebral blood volume (VLCBV) on MR perfusion imaging have been shown to predict hemorrhagic transformation (HT) following stroke thrombolysis. We tested the hypothesis that local reperfusion in a region of VLCBV is a pre-requisite for hemorrhagic transformation using pooled imaging data from the EPITHET and DEFUSE studies. Methods Standard CBV maps were calculated and smoothed (Gaussian) to reduce noise. The volume of VLCBV was calculated within the acute Tmax>4sec perfusion lesion using fully automated techniques and a range of VLCBV thresholds relative to CBV values in the non-stroke hemisphere. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the optimal definition and threshold of VLCBV to predict parenchymal hematoma (PH, ECASS definition). Regional reperfusion was assessed using co-registered subacute Tmax perfusion images (DEFUSE 3-6hrs post thrombolysis, EPITHET 3-5 days post thrombolysis/placebo). The risk of PH associated with VLCBV was assessed with and without exclusion of regions of VLCBV within persistently hypoperfused regions. Results Of 145 patients with baseline perfusion imaging, 22 (15.2%) had PH (13 PH1, 9 PH2). A VLCBV definition of either <2.5 th percentile of the contralateral CBV distribution (VLCBV<2.5pctile) or <15% of the mean contralateral CBV (VLCBV<15%) had similar performance in predicting PH (AUC 0.73 for both). To achieve sensitivity of 95% required a VLCBV<2.5pctile threshold of >2mL (specificity 47%) or a VLCBV<15% threshold of >0.5mL (specificity 41%). There were 130 patients with subacute perfusion imaging, at which time 15 (11.5%) had developed PH. A further 3 patients (without reperfusion at subacute MRI) later developed PH and were excluded as reperfusion status at the time of PH was unknown. In the remaining 127 patients, the AUC for PH increased from 0.77 to 0.92 (p<0.001, VLCBV<2.5pctile definition) when regions of VLCBV without reperfusion on subacute imaging were excluded. The specificity of the >2mL threshold (VLCBV<2.5pctile) increased from 46 to 75%, positive predictive value increased from 20 to 35%, likelihood ratio for PH increased from 1.9 to 4.0 (sensitivity and negative predictive value were both 100% in these 127 patients). No patient developed PH at the time of subacute imaging in the absence of local reperfusion, including one patient where reperfusion of basal ganglia infarction had occurred (with CBV normalisation) prior to thrombolysis. Conclusions Local reperfusion is a critical factor in determining the risk of HT associated with regional VLCBV. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the severe ischemia represented by VLCBV is associated with focal blood-brain-barrier disruption and potential HT should reperfusion subsequently occur. Assessment of VLCBV can be automated and may be useful in clinical risk-benefit decisions regarding thrombolysis.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207