Predicting functional outcomes of posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke in first 36 h of stroke onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke constitutes one-fourth of all ischemic strokes and can be efficiently quantified using the posterior circulation Alberta stroke program early computed tomography score (PC-ASPECTS) through diffusion-weighted imaging. We investigated whether the PC-ASPECTS and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) facilitate functional outcome prediction among Chinese patients with posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke. Participants were selected from our prospective stroke registry from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016. The baseline NIHSS score was assessed on the first day of admission, and brain magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 36 h after stroke onset. Simple and multiple logistic regressions were conducted to determine stroke risk factors and the PC-ASPECTS. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed to compare the NIHSS and PC-ASPECTS. Of 549 patients from our prospective stroke admission registry database, 125 (22.8%) had a diagnosis of posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke. The optimal cutoff for the PC-ASPECTS in predicting outcomes was 7. The odds ratios of the PC-ASPECTS (≤ 7 vs > 7) in predicting outcomes were 6.33 (p = 0.0002) and 8.49 (p = 0.0060) in the univariate and multivariate models, respectively, and 7.52 (p = 0.0041) in the aging group. On ROC curve analysis, the PC-ASPECTS demonstrated more reliability than the baseline NIHSS for predicting functional outcomes of minor posterior circulation stroke. In conclusion, both the PC-ASPECTS and NIHSS help clinicians predict functional outcomes. PC-ASPECTS > 7 is a helpful discriminator for achieving favorable functional outcome prediction in posterior circulation acute 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".