MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592104788 · doi:10.1097/rmr.0000000000000122

ASPECTS CT in Acute Ischemia

2017· review· en· W2592104788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Supada Prakkamakul, Albert J. Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyComputed tomographyStroke (engine)Middle cerebral arteryIschemiaIntracerebral hemorrhageSurgeryCardiologyGlasgow Coma Scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS) is a 10-point semiquantitative topographic scoring system developed for the assessment of early ischemic changes (EICs) on noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory. One point is subtracted from a total score of 10, if an EIC is present in any part of each of the ASPECTS regions. Higher ASPECTS has been associated with better outcomes and a lower risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. To date, there are still controversies regarding the utility of ASPECTS for selecting patients for intravenous and intra-arterial therapies. This article provides a comprehensive review regarding methodology, limitations, and interobserver reproducibility of ASPECTS, as well as application of ASPECTS in clinical care. The focus of this review is ASPECTS evaluation on NCCT. The application of ASPECTS on multimodal computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is briefly described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207