Platelet-rich clots as identified by Martius Scarlet Blue staining are isodense on NCCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Current studies on clot characterization in acute ischemic stroke focus on fibrin and red blood cell composition. Few studies have examined platelet composition in acute ischemic stroke clots. We characterize clot composition using the Martius Scarlet Blue stain and assess associations between platelet density and CT density. Materials and method Histopathological analysis of the clots collected as part of the multi-institutional STRIP registry was performed using Martius Scarlet Blue stain and the composition of the clots was quantified using Orbit Image Analysis (www.orbit.bio) machine learning software. Prior to endovascular treatment, each patient underwent non-contrast CT (NCCT) and the CT density of each clot was measured. Correlations between clot components and clinical information were assessed using the χ 2 test. Results Eighty-five patients were included in the study. The mean platelet density of the clots was 15.7% (2.5–72.5%). There was a significant correlation between platelet-rich clots and the absence of hyperdensity on NCCT, (ρ=0.321, p=0.003*, n=85). Similarly, there was a significant inverse correlation between the percentage of platelets and the mean Hounsfield Units on NCCT (ρ=−0.243, p=0.025*, n=85). Conclusion Martius Scarlet Blue stain can identify patients who have platelet-rich clots. Platelet-rich clots are isodense on NCCT.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".