Automated ASPECTS in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comparative Analysis with CT Perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:</h3> Automated ASPECTS has the potential of reducing interobserver variability in the determination of early ischemic changes. We aimed to assess the performance of an automated ASPECTS software against the assessment of a neuroradiologist in a comparative analysis with concurrent CTP-based CBV ASPECTS. <h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</h3> Patients with anterior circulation stroke who had baseline NCCT and CTP and underwent successful mechanical thrombectomy were included. NCCT-ASPECTS was assessed by 2 neuroradiologists, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. CTP-CBV ASPECTS was assessed by a different neuroradiologist. Automated ASPECTS was provided by Brainomix software. ASPECTS was dichotomized (ASPECTS ≥6 or <6) and was also based on the time from onset (>6 or ≤6 hours). <h3>RESULTS:</h3> A total of 58 patients were included. The interobserver agreement for NCCT ASPECTS was moderate (κ = 0.48) and marginally improved (κ = 0.64) for dichotomized data. Automated ASPECTS showed excellent agreement with consensus reads (κ = 0.84) and CTP-CBV ASPECTS (κ = 0.84). Intraclass correlation coefficients for ASPECTS across all 3 groups were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76–0.90, raw scores) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91–0.96, dichotomized scores). Automated scores were comparable with consensus reads and CTP-CBV ASPECTS in patients when grouped on the basis of time from symptom onset (>6 or ≤6 hours). There was significant (<i>P </i>< .001) negative correlation with final infarction volume and the 3 ASPECTS groups (<i>r</i> = −0.52, consensus reads; −0.58, CTP-CBV; and −0.66, automated). <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> ASPECTS derived from an automated software performs equally as well as consensus reads of expert neuroradiologists and concurrent CTP-CBV ASPECTS and can be used to standardize ASPECTS reporting and minimize interpretation variability.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".