Factors influencing infarct growth including collateral status assessed using computed tomography in acute stroke patients with large artery occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In major ischemic stroke caused by a large artery occlusion, neuronal loss varies considerably across individuals without revascularization. This study aims to identify which patient characteristics are most highly associated with this variability. Demographic and clinical information were retrospectively collected on a registry of 878 patients. Imaging biomarkers including Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score, noncontrast head computed tomography infarct volume, perfusion computed tomography infarct core and penumbra, occlusion site, collateral score, and recanalization status were evaluated on the baseline and early follow-up computed tomography images. Infarct growth rates were calculated by dividing infarct volumes by the time elapsed between the computed tomography scan and the symptom onset. Collateral score was graded into four levels (0, 1, 2, and 3) in comparison with the normal side. Correlation of perfusion computed tomography and noncontrast head computed tomography infarct volumes and infarct growth rates were estimated with the nonparametric Spearman's rank correlation. Conditional inference trees were used to identify the clinical and imaging biomarkers that were most highly associated with the infarct growth rate and modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. Two hundred and thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. The median infarct growth rates for perfusion computed tomography and noncontrast head computed tomography were 11.2 and 6.2 ml/log(min) in logarithmic model, and 18.9 and 10.4 ml/h in linear model, respectively. Noncontrast head computed tomography and perfusion computed tomography infarct volumes and infarct growth rates were significantly correlated (rho=0.53; P < 0.001). Collateral status was the strongest predictor for infarct growth rates. For collateral=0, the perfusion computed tomography and noncontrast head computed tomography infarct growth rate were 31.56 and 16.86 ml/log(min), respectively. Patients who had collateral >0 and penumbra volumes>92 ml had the lowest predicted perfusion computed tomography infarct growth rates (6.61 ml/log(min)). Collateral status was closely related to the diversity of infarct growth rates, poor collaterals were associated with a faster infarct growth rates and vice versa.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".