Validating a Predictive Model of Acute Advanced Imaging Biomarkers in Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— Advanced imaging to identify tissue pathophysiology may provide more accurate prognostication than the clinical measures used currently in stroke. This study aimed to derive and validate a predictive model for functional outcome based on acute clinical and advanced imaging measures. Methods— A database of prospectively collected sub-4.5 hour patients with ischemic stroke being assessed for thrombolysis from 5 centers who had computed tomographic perfusion and computed tomographic angiography before a treatment decision was assessed. Individual variable cut points were derived from a classification and regression tree analysis. The optimal cut points for each assessment variable were then used in a backward logic regression to predict modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0 to 1 and 5 to 6. The variables remaining in the models were then assessed using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results— Overall, 1519 patients were included in the study, 635 in the derivation cohort and 884 in the validation cohort. The model was highly accurate at predicting mRS score of 0 to 1 in all patients considered for thrombolysis therapy (area under the curve [AUC] 0.91), those who were treated (AUC 0.88) and those with recanalization (AUC 0.89). Next, the model was highly accurate at predicting mRS score of 5 to 6 in all patients considered for thrombolysis therapy (AUC 0.91), those who were treated (0.89) and those with recanalization (AUC 0.91). The odds ratio of thrombolysed patients who met the model criteria achieving mRS score of 0 to 1 was 17.89 (4.59–36.35, P <0.001) and for mRS score of 5 to 6 was 8.23 (2.57–26.97, P <0.001). Conclusions— This study has derived and validated a highly accurate model at predicting patient outcome after ischemic stroke.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".