Cerebral infarct volume measurements to improve patient selection for endovascular treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients who have large cerebral infarctions may not be good candidates for endovascular treatment. Various methods for determining infarct volume have been used in clinical studies. We evaluated the effectiveness of several methods for measuring infarct volume, especially regarding futile outcomes despite endovascular treatment.Patients with acute ischemic stroke in unilateral anterior circulation territory who were treated with intra-arterial thrombectomy were included. For assessing infarct volume, the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) scoring system was applied to images obtained by noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT), postcontrast CT (PCCT), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). DWI stroke volume was semiquantitatively measured with the manually outlined hyperintense lesion. Infarct core volume was calculated with a threshold apparent diffusion coefficient value of 600 × 10 mm/s. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were estimated to assess inter-reader reliability for ASPECTS scoring and DWI stroke volume. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, and univariable and multivariable comparative analyses, were performed with each evaluation method to predict futile outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 5-6).The mean age of the included 79 patients was 65.1 ± 15.7 years. Among them, 55 (69.6%) patients demonstrated successful reperfusion after intra-arterial thrombectomy, but 34 (43.0%) patients had futile outcomes. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for measurement of the DWI stroke volume (ICC, 0.973), DWI ASPECTS (0.940), and PCCT ASPECTS (0.859), but was moderate for NCCT ASPECTS (0.694). Regarding prediction of futile outcomes, area under ROC curve was 0.551 on NCCT ASPECTS and it was significantly smaller than that in PCCT ASPECTS (area under ROC 0.651, P = 0.030), DWI ASPECTS (0.733, P = 0.003), DWI stroke volume (0.702, P = 0.022), and infarct core volume (0.702, P = 0.021). Besides old age and high National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission, MRI parameters such as DWI ASPECTS and infarct core volume indicating large volumes were independently associated with futile outcomes in multivariable analyses.DWI ASPECTS can be a good parameter predicting futility, which is easily measured and has high prediction power.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".