What constitutes the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator has limited efficacy in fibrinolysis of large proximal intracranial thrombi. Thus, recent endovascular acute stroke trials restricted their selection criteria to patients with proximal occlusions in the anterior circulation. Although the terminal internal carotid artery occlusion is relatively easy to identify, there is often a debate as to what constitutes a proximal (involving the M1 segment) versus a distal (involving the M2 segment and beyond) middle cerebral artery occlusion. In light of overwhelming evidence demonstrating superiority of endovascular treatment in patients with proximal occlusion, this distinction has significant practical implications in patient selection. Here we present a brief review of the proximal (M1) segment of the middle cerebral artery anatomy and provide practical methods to recognize and separate the M1 and M2 segments. In keeping with the belief that CT angiography (CTA) (preferably multiphase CTA) is the ideal screening test for patients with emergent large vessel occlusion, we have provided tips for expeditious and accurate vascular imaging interpretation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".