ASPECTS decay during inter-facility transfer in patients with large vessel occlusion strokes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Favorable imaging profile according to the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) on non-contrast head CT is a key criterion for the selection of patients with ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (LVO) for IA revascularization therapies. OBJECTIVE: To analyze factors associated with changes in ASPECTS during inter-hospital transfer and to determine how deterioration of ASPECTS affects eligibility for endovascular procedures. METHODS: We analyzed factors associated with changes in ASPECTS during inter-hospital transfer and their potential impact on eligibility for IA stroke therapies in patients with anterior circulation ischemic strokes. Clinical and demographic characteristics between patients with favorable (ASPECTS ≥6) and unfavorable (ASPECTS <6) imaging on repeat CT were compared. RESULTS: Stroke evolution towards unfavorable ASPECTS occurred in 13/42 (31%) patients who initially had a favorable imaging profile at outside hospitals. A higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was the only significant predictor of ASPECTS decay, whereas other clinical characteristics, such as the use of IV thrombolysis and site of LVO, were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, one out of three patients became ineligible for IA thrombectomy because of unfavorable ASPECTS 'decay' following inter-hospital transfer. Except for NIHSS severity, baseline clinical factors could not identify which patients were at risk for ASPECTS deterioration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".