Predicting Motor Outcome in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Predicting motor outcome following intracerebral hemorrhage is challenging. We tested whether the combination of clinical scores and DTI-based assessment of corticospinal tract damage within the first 12 hours of symptom onset after intracerebral hemorrhage predicts motor outcome at 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively studied patients with motor deficits secondary to primary intracerebral hemorrhage within the first 12 hours of symptom onset. Patients underwent multimodal MR imaging including DTI. We assessed intracerebral hemorrhage and perihematomal edema location and volume, and corticospinal tract involvement. The corticospinal tract was considered affected when the tractogram passed through the intracerebral hemorrhage or/and the perihematomal edema. We also calculated affected corticospinal tract-to-unaffected corticospinal tract ratios for fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and axial and radial diffusivities. Motor impairment was graded by the motor subindex scores of the modified NIHSS. Motor outcome at 3 months was classified as good (modified NIHSS 0-3) or poor (modified NIHSS 4-8). RESULTS: Of 62 patients, 43 were included. At admission, the median NIHSS score was 13 (interquartile range = 8-17), and the median modified NIHSS score was 5 (interquartile range = 2-8). At 3 months, 13 (30.23%) had poor motor outcome. Significant independent predictors of motor outcome were NIHSS and modified NIHSS at admission, posterior limb of the internal capsule involvement by intracerebral hemorrhage at admission, intracerebral hemorrhage volume at admission, 72-hour NIHSS, and 72-hour modified NIHSS. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for poor motor outcome at 3 months by a combined modified NIHSS of >6 and posterior limb of the internal capsule involvement in the first 12 hours from symptom onset were 84%, 79%, 65%, and 92%, respectively (area under the curve = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1). CONCLUSIONS: Combined assessment of motor function and posterior limb of the internal capsule damage during acute intracerebral hemorrhage accurately predicts motor outcome.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".