Automated CT Perfusion Ischemic Core Volume and Noncontrast CT ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The semiquantitative noncontrast CT Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and RAPID automated computed tomography (CT) perfusion (CTP) ischemic core volumetric measurements have been used to quantify infarct extent. We aim to determine the correlation between ASPECTS and CTP ischemic core, evaluate the variability of core volumes within ASPECTS strata, and assess the strength of their association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: Review of a prospective, single-center database of consecutive thrombectomies of middle cerebral or intracranial internal carotid artery occlusions with pretreatment CTP between September 2010 and September 2015. CTP was processed with RAPID software to identify ischemic core (relative cerebral blood flow<30% of normal tissue). RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-two patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Median age was 66 years (55-75), median ASPECTS was 8 (7-9), whereas median CTP ischemic core was 11 cc (2-27). Median time from last normal to groin puncture was 5.8 hours (3.9-8.8), and 90-day modified Rankin scale score 0 to 2 was observed in 54%. The correlation between CTP ischemic core and ASPECTS was fair (R=-0.36; P<0.01). Twenty-six patients (8%) had ASPECTS <6 and CTP core ≤50 cc (37% had modified Rankin scale score 0-2, whereas 29% were deceased at 90 days). Conversely, 27 patients (8%) had CTP core >50 cc and ASPECTS ≥6 (29% had modified Rankin scale 0-2, whereas 21% were deceased at 90 days). Moderate correlations between ASPECTS and final infarct volume (R=-0.42; P<0.01) and between CTP ischemic core and final infarct volume (R=0.50; P<0.01) were observed; coefficients were not significantly influenced by the time from stroke onset to presentation. Multivariable regression indicated ASPECTS ≥6 (odds ratio 4.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-11.46; P=0.01) and CTP core ≤50 cc (odds ratio 3.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-12.15; P=0.02) independently and comparably predictive of good outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability of CTP-derived core volumes within ASPECTS strata. Patient selection may be affected by the imaging selection 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".