Computed Tomography Perfusion Derived Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability Does Not Yet Improve Prediction of Hemorrhagic Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".