Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score in the Prognostication after Endovascular Treatment for Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was devised to quantify the extent of early ischemic changes in the middle cerebral artery territory on brain CT. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that presented clinical outcomes and baseline ASPECTS in ischemic stroke patients managed with endovascular methods to validate the use of ASPECTS for risk prognostication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochran databases for observational or interventional studies that reported clinical outcomes and baseline ASPECTS in ischemic stroke patients treated with endovascular methods. Data were pooled to perform a meta-analysis for comparisons of clinical outcomes between high and low ASPECTS patients. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 13 studies (six observational and seven interventional) revealed favorable outcomes (mRS sore 0-2 at 90 days) for high baseline ASPECTS (odds ratio=2.22; 95% CI: 1.74-2.86). CONCLUSION: High ASPECTS is a predictor of favorable outcome after endovascular therapy for 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".