MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626309417 · doi:10.1177/2396987317715836

Location of intracerebral haemorrhage predicts haematoma expansion

2017· article· en· W2626309417 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeHealth Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracranial haemorrhagePost-hoc analysisStroke (engine)Internal medicineSurgeryRadiologyNeurosurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The role of intracerebral haemorrhage location in haematoma expansion remains unclear. Our objective was to assess the effect of lobar versus non-lobar haemorrhage on haematoma expansion and clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed data from the prospective PREDICT study where patients with intracerebral haemorrhage presenting to hospital under 6 h of symptom onset received baseline computed tomography (CT), CT angiogram, 24 h follow-up CT, and 90-day mRS. Intracerebral haemorrhage location was categorised as lobar versus non-lobar, and primary outcomes were significant haematoma expansion (>6 ml) and poor clinical outcome (mRS > 3). Multivariable regression was used to adjust for relevant covariates. The primary analysis population was divided by spot sign status and the effect of haemorrhage location was compared to haematoma expansion in exploratory post hoc analysis. RESULTS: Among 302 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, lobar haemorrhage was associated with increased haematoma expansion >6 ml (p = 0.003), poor clinical outcome (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.017). When adjusted for covariates, lobar haemorrhage independently predicted significant haematoma expansion (aOR 2.2 (95% CI: 1.1-4.3), p = 0.021) and poor clinical outcome (aOR 2.6 (95% CI: 1.2-5.6), p = 0.019). Post hoc analysis showed that patients who were spot sign negative had a higher degree of haematoma expansion with baseline lobar haemorrhage (lobar 26% versus deep 11%; p = 0.01). No significant associations were observed in spot-positive patients (lobar 52% versus deep 47%; p = 0.69). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Haematoma expansion is more likely to occur with lobar intracerebral haemorrhage and haemorrhage location is associated with poor clinical outcome. As expansion is a promising therapeutic target, hemorrhage location may be helpful for prognostication and as a selection tool in future ICH clinical trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.272 · 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