Performance of e-ASPECTS software in comparison to that of stroke physicians on assessing CT scans of acute ischemic stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS) is an established 10-point quantitative topographic computed tomography scan score to assess early ischemic changes. We compared the performance of the e-ASPECTS software with those of stroke physicians at different professional levels. METHODS: The baseline computed tomography scans of acute stroke patients, in whom computed tomography and diffusion-weighted imaging scans were obtained less than two hours apart, were retrospectively scored by e-ASPECTS as well as by three stroke experts and three neurology trainees blinded to any clinical information. The ground truth was defined as the ASPECTS on diffusion-weighted imaging scored by another two non-blinded independent experts on consensus basis. Sensitivity and specificity in an ASPECTS region-based and an ASPECTS score-based analysis as well as receiver-operating characteristic curves, Bland-Altman plots with mean score error, and Matthews correlation coefficients were calculated. Comparisons were made between the human scorers and e-ASPECTS with diffusion-weighted imaging being the ground truth. Two methods for clustered data were used to estimate sensitivity and specificity in the region-based analysis. RESULTS: In total, 34 patients were included and 680 (34 × 20) ASPECTS regions were scored. Mean time from onset to computed tomography was 172 ± 135 min and mean time difference between computed tomographyand magnetic resonance imaging was 41 ± 31 min. The region-based sensitivity (46.46% [CI: 30.8;62.1]) of e-ASPECTS was better than three trainees and one expert (p ≤ 0.01) and not statistically different from another two experts. Specificity (94.15% [CI: 91.7;96.6]) was lower than one expert and one trainee (p < 0.01) and not statistically different to the other four physicians. e-ASPECTS had the best Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.44 (experts: 0.38 ± 0.08 and trainees: 0.19 ± 0.05) and the lowest mean score error of 0.56 (experts: 1.44 ± 1.79 and trainees: 1.97 ± 2.12). CONCLUSION: e-ASPECTS showed a similar performance to that of stroke experts in the assessment of brain computed tomographys of acute ischemic stroke patients with the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score method.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".