MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301363397 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a4751

Multimodal CT Imaging: Time to Treatment and Outcomes in the IMS III Trial

2016· article· en· W2301363397 on OpenAlexafffund
Achala Vagal, Lydia D. Foster, Bijoy K. Menon, Anthony Livorine, Junzi Shi, Emmad Qazi, Sharon D. Yeatts, Andrew M. Demchuk, Michael D. Hill, Thomas A. Tomsick, Mayank Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAlberta InnovatesStrykerGenentech
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The importance of time in acute stroke is well-established. Using the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial data, we explored the effect of multimodal imaging (CT perfusion and/or CT angiography) versus noncontrast CT alone on time to treatment and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined 3 groups: 1) subjects with baseline CTP and CTA (CTP+CTA), 2) subjects with baseline CTA without CTP (CTA), and 3) subjects with noncontrast head CT alone. The demographics, treatment time intervals, and clinical outcomes in these groups were studied. RESULTS: Of 656 subjects enrolled in the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial, 90 (13.7%) received CTP and CTA, 216 (32.9%) received CTA (without CTP), and 342 (52.1%) received NCCT alone. Median times for the CTP+CTA, CTA, and NCCT groups were as follows: stroke onset to IV tPA (120.5 versus 117.5 versus 120 minutes; P = .5762), IV tPA to groin puncture (77.5 versus 81 versus 91 minutes; P = .0043), groin puncture to endovascular therapy start (30 versus 38 versus 44 minutes; P = .0001), and endovascular therapy start to end (63 versus 46 versus 74 minutes; P < .0001). Compared with NCCT, the CTA group had better outcomes in the endovascular arm (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.36-3.31; adjusted for age, NIHSS score, and time from onset to IV tPA). The CTP+CTA group did not have better outcomes compared with the NCCT group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of CTA with or without CTP did not delay IV tPA or endovascular therapy compared with NCCT in the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207