Ischemic lesion growth in acute stroke: Water uptake quantification distinguishes between edema and tissue infarct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infarct growth from the early ischemic core to the total infarct lesion volume (LV) is often used as an outcome variable of treatment effects, but can be overestimated due to vasogenic edema. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess two components of early lesion growth by distinguishing between water uptake and true net infarct growth and (2) to investigate potential treatment effects on edema-corrected net lesion growth. Sixty-two M1-MCA-stroke patients with acute multimodal and follow-up CT (FCT) were included. Ischemic lesion growth was calculated by subtracting the initial CTP-derived ischemic core volume from the LV in the FCT. To determine edema-corrected net lesion growth, net water uptake of the ischemic lesion on FCT was quantified and subtracted from the volume of uncorrected lesion growth. The mean lesion growth without edema correction was 20.4 mL (95% CI: 8.2–32.5 mL). The mean net lesion growth after edema correction was 7.3 mL (95% CI: −2.1–16.7 mL; p < 0.0001). Lesion growth was significantly overestimated due to ischemic edema when determined in early-FCT imaging. In 18 patients, LV was lower than the initial ischemic core volume by CTP. These apparently “reversible” core lesions were more likely in patients with shorter times from symptom onset to imaging and higher recanalization rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".