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 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

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

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Studies have shown a lack of agreement of computed tomography perfusion (CTP) in the selection of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients for endovascular treatment. <b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To demonstrate whether non-contrast computed tomography (CT) within 8 h of symptom onset is comparable to CTP imaging. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 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 (<i>p</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Patients with an ASPECTS ≥7 had 10% mortality versus 51.4% in patients with an ASPECTS < 7 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
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