MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2551650003 · doi:10.1161/str.47.suppl_1.wp54

Abstract WP54: Evaluation of the e-ASPECTS Automated Software for Detection of Acute Ischemic Stroke

2016· article· en· W2551650003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Devesh Sinha, Christine Roffe, Silke Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerfusionRadiologyPerfusion scanningStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeAngiographyAcute strokeIschemiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS)method is a validated score for identifying patients more likely to benefit from either thrombolytic or endovascular therapy. The e-ASPECTS software is a new, commercially available, standardized and fully automated ASPECTS scoring tool. e-ASPECTS assesses signs of early ischemic change on plain CT scans of stroke patients by applying the ASPECTS method. We compared the performance of e-ASPECTS to CT perfusion in detecting early ischemic signs. Methods: e-ASPECTS was run on the plain CT scans of 20 patients with acute ischemic stroke. CT perfusion, CT angiography and 24h CT was also available. The ischemic damage identified by e-ASPECTS was compared to the ischemic core as depicted on CBV on CT perfusion and the established infarct core on plain CT at 24h. Findings: e-ASPECTS reliably depicted established ischemic damage as compared to CT-Perfusion, both on an region-based and ASPECTS-based analysis. Conclusion: This is the first report demonstrating that e-ASPECTS correctly identified infarct on plain CT, similar to CT perfusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→