MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784082603 · doi:10.1159/000485043

Computed Tomography Perfusion Derived Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability Does Not Yet Improve Prediction of Hemorrhagic Transformation

2018· article· en· W2784082603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander D. Horsch, Edwin Bennink, Tom van Seeters, L. Jaap Kappelle, Yolanda van der Graaf, Willem P.Th.M. Mali, Hugo W. A. M. de Jong, Birgitta K. Velthuis, Jan Willem Dankbaar

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumSt. Antonius ZiekenhuisRadboud UniversiteitErasmus Medisch CentrumUniversiteit Leiden
KeywordsMedicinePerfusion scanningUnivariate analysisLogistic regressionStroke (engine)PerfusionThrombolysisInternal medicineTissue plasminogen activatorBrain ischemiaCardiologyNuclear medicineMultivariate analysisIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhagic transformation (HT) in acute ischemic stroke can occur as a result of reperfusion treatment. While withholding treatment may be warranted in patients with increased risk of HT, prediction of HT remains difficult. Nonlinear regression analysis can be used to estimate blood-brain barrier permeability (BBBP). The aim of this study was to identify a combination of clinical and imaging variables, including BBBP estimations, that can predict HT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the Dutch acute stroke study, 545 patients treated with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and/or intra-arterial treatment were selected, with available admission extended computed tomography (CT) perfusion and follow-up imaging. Patient admission treatment characteristics and CT imaging parameters regarding occlusion site, stroke severity, and BBBP were recorded. HT was assessed on day 3 follow-up imaging. The association between potential predictors and HT was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. To compare the added value of BBBP, areas under the curve (AUCs) were created from 2 models, with and without BBBP. RESULTS: HT occurred in 57 patients (10%). In univariate analysis, older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.006-1.05), higher admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS; OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18), higher clot burden (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.41), poor collateral score (OR 3.49, 95% CI 1.85-6.58), larger Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score cerebral blood volume deficit size (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.14-1.38), and increased BBBP (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.46-3.37) were associated with HT. In multivariate analysis with age and admission NIHSS, the addition of BBBP did not improve the AUC compared to both independent predictors alone (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.83). CONCLUSION: BBBP predicts HT but does not improve prediction with age and admission NIHSS.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207