Clot Burden Score and Early Ischemia Predict Intracranial Hemorrhage following Endovascular Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial hemorrhage is a known complication following endovascular thrombectomy. The radiologic characteristics of a CT scan may assist with hemorrhage risk stratification. We assessed the radiologic predictors of intracranial hemorrhage following endovascular therapy using data from the INTERRSeCT (Identifying New Approaches to Optimize Thrombus Characterization for Predicting Early Recanalization and Reperfusion With IV Alteplase and Other Treatments Using Serial CT Angiography) study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing endovascular therapy underwent baseline imaging, postprocedural angiography, and 24-hour follow-up imaging. The primary outcome was any intracranial hemorrhage observed on follow-up imaging. The secondary outcome was symptomatic hemorrhage. We assessed the relationship between hemorrhage occurrence and baseline patient characteristics, clinical course, and imaging factors: baseline ASPECTS, thrombus location, residual flow grade, collateralization, and clot burden score. Multivariable logistic regression with backward selection was used to adjust for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Of the 199 enrolled patients who met the inclusion criteria, 46 (23%) had an intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours. On multivariable analysis, postprocedural hemorrhage was associated with pretreatment ASPECTS (OR, 1.56 per point lost; 95% CI, 1.12-2.15), clot burden score (OR, 1.19 per point lost; 95% CI, 1.03-1.38), and ICA thrombus location (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.07-8.91). In post hoc analysis, clot burden scores of ≤3 (sensitivity, 41%; specificity, 82%; OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.36-7.15) and pretreatment ASPECTS ≤ 7 (sensitivity, 48%; specificity, 82%; OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.35-7.45) robustly predicted hemorrhage. Residual flow grade and collateralization were not associated with hemorrhage occurrence. Symptomatic hemorrhage was observed in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologic factors, early ischemia on CT, and increased CTA clot burden are associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients undergoing endovascular therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".