MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918170743 · doi:10.1159/000496615

Prospective Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke Evaluating Non-Contrast Head CT versus CT Perfusion (PLEASE No CTP)

2019· article· en· W2918170743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ameer E Hassan, Hafsah Shamim, Haralabos Zacharatos, Saqib Chaudhry, Christina Sanchez, Wondwossen Tekle, Olive Sanchez, Erlinda Abantao, Adnan I. Qureshi

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenumbraMedicineModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Perfusion scanningRadiologyProspective cohort studyAngiographyPerfusionInternal medicineCardiologyIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies have shown a lack of agreement of computed tomography perfusion (CTP) in the selection of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients for endovascular treatment. Purpose: To demonstrate whether non-contrast computed tomography (CT) within 8 h of symptom onset is comparable to CTP imaging. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive anterior circulation AIS patients with a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score > 7 presenting within 8 h of symptom onset with endovascular treatment. All patients had non-contrast CT, CT angiography, and CTP. The neuro-interventionalist was blinded to the results of the CTP and based the treatment decision using the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS). Baseline demographics, co-morbidities, and baseline NIHSS scores were collected. Outcomes were modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at discharge and in-hospital mortality. Good outcomes were defined as a mRS score of 0–2. Results: 283 AIS patients were screened for the trial, and 119 were enrolled. The remaining patients were excluded for: posterior circulation stroke, no CTP performed, could not obtain consent, and NIHSS score < 7. Mean ­NIHSS score at admission was 16.8 ± 3, and mean ASPECTS was 8.4 ± 1.4. There was no statistically significant correlation with CTP penumbra and good outcomes: 50 versus 47.8% with no penumbra present (p = 0.85). In patients without evidence of CTP penumbra, there was 22.5% mortality compared to 22.1% mortality in patients with a CTP penumbra. If ASPECTS ≥7, 64.6% had good outcome versus 13.3% if ASPECTS < 7 (p < 0.001). Patients with an ASPECTS ≥7 had 10% mortality versus 51.4% in patients with an ASPECTS < 7 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: CTP penumbra did not identify patients who would benefit from endovascular treatment when patients were selected with non-contrast CT ASPECTS ≥7. There is no correlation of CTP penumbra with good outcomes or mortality. Larger prospective trials are warranted to justify the use of CTP within 6 h of symptom onset.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207