MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2285517448 · doi:10.1161/str.43.suppl_1.a3595

Abstract 3595: Perfusion imaging predicts Outcome in TIA and Minor Stroke. A Prospective Derivation-Validation Study

2012· article· en· W2285517448 on OpenAlexaff
Negar Asdaghi, Jonathan I Coulter, Jayish Modi, Abdul Qazi, Mayank Goyal, Kenneth Butcher, Andrew M. Demchuk, Michael D. Hill, Shelagh B. Coutts

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryProspective cohort studyStroke (engine)Internal medicinePopulationMagnetic resonance imagingCohortMinor strokeHazard ratioCardiologyNuclear medicineRadiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients presenting with transient or minor ischemic symptoms (TIA/MIS) are at risk for early deterioration. Identification of those at highest risk for progression may justify more aggressive acute reperfusion treatments. We tested the hypothesis that baseline perfusion (PWI)- diffusion (DWI) mismatch predicts clinical deterioration and infarct growth on follow-up imaging in this population. Methods: Patients with TIA/MIS (NIH Stroke Scale ≤ 3) were prospectively enrolled and imaged within 24 hours of symptom onset as part of two sequential prospective imaging studies. All patients had clinical follow-up. Baseline DWI and PWI (tmax+4s delay) and follow-up FLAIR infarct volumes (day 30 (derivation), day 90 (validation) cohort) were measured. Mismatch volumes were calculated as (Tmax+4s delay) - DWI lesion volume. Primary outcome was infarct growth on FLAIR imaging which was defined a priori as growth of at least 2.5 ml. Secondary outcome was clinical progression. Results: 137 patients were included in the derivation and 281 patients in the validation cohorts. The rates of DWI (54% vs 56%, p= 0.67) and PWI lesions (42% vs 34.5%, p=0.16) at baseline were similar between the cohorts. The median time between symptom onset and baseline imaging was significantly shorter in the derivation (9.2 h, IQR=9.4) relative to the validation sets (15.1h, IQR=12.5 p<0.001). More patients had follow-up imaging in the derivation (87%) compared to the validation (76%) cohort (p=0.021). Primary and secondary outcome occurred in 18.5% and 9.5% in the derivation and 5.5% and 4.6% in the validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, baseline mismatch volumes adjusting for age, sex and time from symptom onset to MRI significantly predicted radiographic progression (OR=1.06 [1.03-1.09], p<0.001). The optimal threshold for maximizing sensitivity (Sen) and specificity (Spec) in predicting infarct growth occurred at a mismatch volume of 10ml; which correctly predicted infarct expansion with 82% (Sen) and 91%(Spec) (Area under the curve (AUC)= 0.89 [0.80-0.98]). In the validation cohort, this threshold was highly predictive of radiological progression (p=0.011, McNemars test). Linear regression showed that for every 10ml of mismatch, there would be 2.5ml infarct growth on day 30 FLAIR [R=0.80, p<0.001] (derivation set) and 1.1 ml of growth on day 90 FLAIR (R=0.22, p<0.001) (validation set). Baseline mismatch showed a high discriminative value in predicting clinical deterioration in the derivation (AUC =0.81 [0.67-0.96]) and moderate value in the validation cohort (AUC=0.66 [0.46, 0.85]). Conclusion: In a population of patients with minor stroke and TIA, early MR perfusion-diffusion mismatch predicts infarct growth and clinical progression. These findings suggest that there may be a group of patients with minor symptoms in whom reperfusion strategies may be beneficial.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→