MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2944707148 · doi:10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.tp337

Abstract TP337: Multiphase CTA Improves ICH Expansion Prediction and Might Provide Additional Information on the Pathophysiology of the Spot Sign

2017· article· en· W2944707148 on OpenAlexaff
David Rodríguez‐Luna, Pilar Coscojuela, Noelia Rodríguez‐Villatoro, Jesús Juega, Sandra Boned, Marián Muchada, Jorge Pagola, Marta Rubiera, Marc Ribó, Alejandro Tomasello, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mayank Goyal, Carlos A. Molina

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematomaSign (mathematics)Observational studyProspective cohort studyPathophysiologyRadiologyNuclear medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although the spot sign is a strong predictor of hematoma expansion, there is no accepted consensus on the timing of CTA acquisition, mainly because its pathophysiologic significance is uncertain. We investigated the yield of the spot sign in the prediction of hematoma expansion and its pathophysiological underpinnings using multiphase CTA. Methods: Single-center prospective observational cohort study of 123 consecutive patients with acute (<6 hours) ICH. Patients underwent multiphase CTA performed in 3 automated phases after contrast dye injection (delay of 8, 4, and 15 seconds, respectively). According to spot sign positivity in the 3 phases, patients were categorized into 1 of 4 patterns: A (+/+/-), B (+/+/+), C (-/+/+), and D (-/-/+). Outcomes included frequency of the spot sign, significant hematoma expansion at 24 hours (>33% or >6 mL, primary outcome), and absolute hematoma growth. Results: The frequency of the spot sign was higher the later the phase of CTA was: 29.3% in phase 1, 43.1% in 2, and 46.3% in 3 ( P <0.001). The presence of the spot sign in phase 1, 2, 3, or any phase was related to significant hematoma expansion ( P <0.001 for all comparisons). Predictive values varied depending on the CTA phase, with highest PPV observed in phase 1 (63%) and highest NPV in phase 2 (88.9%). Onset to imaging time was not significantly lower the more arterial the pattern of spot sign presentation was (Figure). The frequency of significant hematoma expansion was higher the earlier the pattern of spot sign presentation: A 100%, B 59.1%, C 40%, and D 0% ( P =0.013). Absolute hematoma growth analysis showed a hierarchical distribution of patterns of spot sign presentation: A > B > C > D > no spot sign ( P =0.003, Figure). Conclusions: Multiphase CTA improves hematoma expansion prediction and might provide additional information on the pathophysiology of the spot sign. Arterial spot signs may represent the point of active hemorrhage, and venous spot signs the site of resolved bleeding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→