MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891213421 · doi:10.1111/jon.12564

Baseline ASPECTS and e‐ASPECTS Correlation with Infarct Volume and Functional Outcome in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy

2018· article· en· W2891213421 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroimaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyPerfusion scanningStroke (engine)Internal medicineInfarctionCorrelationAcute strokePerfusionRadiologyNuclear medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The role of Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS) in predicting which patients are likely to benefit from endovascular therapy (EVT) is not well defined. An automated software (e‐ASPECTS) has been created to solve its poor interrater reliability. We aim to evaluate correlation between radiologist (Rx) and e‐ASPECTS scoring with cerebral blood volume (CBV) infarct core and with final infarct volume; as well as with long‐term functional outcome. METHODS We included patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion who underwent EVT. We measured baseline radiologist (Rx) ASPECTS and e‐ASPECTS, and baseline CBV infarct core on CT perfusion. Final infarct volume was measured on 24‐hour control CT. RESULTS We included 184 patients, in which 82.1% of patients achieved complete recanalization. Median Rx‐ASPECTS/e‐ASPECTS was 9 (IQR 8–10 vs. IQR 7.75‐10) and mean CBV lesion was 29.51 (±47.41) mL. Correlation ( r s ) between ASPECTS and e‐ASPECTS was .44 ( P < .01). Both ASPECTS scores correlated with CBV after 180 minutes of symptom onset ( r s = –.41 vs. –.54, P < .01) and with final infarct volume in patients with complete recanalization ( r s = –.40 vs. –.43, P < .01). In a logistic regression, either Rx‐ASPECTS, e‐ASPECTS, and CBV (OR 1.60 vs. 1.87 vs. .96; P < .05) predicted a low infarct volume. Rx‐ASPECTS and e‐ASPECTS also predicted functional independence (mRS 0–2) at 3 months (1.52 vs. 1.37; P < .05). CONCLUSION ASPECTS and e‐ASPECTS showed a mild correlation with CBV. Rx‐ASPECTS, e‐ASPECTS, and CBV predicted a low infarct volume after thrombectomy in recanalized patients but only Rx‐ASPECTS and e‐ASPECTS predicted functional independence at 3 months.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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