MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987706176 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.012558

Use of Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging‐Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (DWI‐ASPECTS) and Ischemic Core Volume to Determine the Malignant Profile in Acute Stroke

2019· article· en· W2987706176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Takeshi Yoshimoto, Manabu Inoue, Hiroshi Yamagami, Kyohei Fujita, Kanta Tanaka, Daisuke Ando, Kazutaka Sonoda, Naruhiko Kamogawa, Masatoshi Koga, Masafumi Ihara, Ḱazunori Toyoda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Diffusion MRIReceiver operating characteristicOcclusionArea under the curveRadiologyAcute strokeIschemiaMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineNuclear medicineIschemic strokeTissue plasminogen activator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Malignant profiles were identified by imaging profiles and unfavorable outcomes that have poor response to reperfusion therapy. Many trials have used this profile in their inclusion criteria including large‐vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke trials. We aimed to redefine the cutoff values for malignant profile in acute ischemic stroke patients with large‐vessel occlusion regardless of reperfusion therapy. Methods and Results Consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with anterior large‐vessel occlusion were prospectively extracted from the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center Stroke Registry between March 2014 and December 2017. Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging‐Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (DWI‐ASPECTS) and diffusion‐weighted imaging lesion ischemic core volume (Vol DWI ) were measured in acute ischemic stroke patients with large‐vessel occlusion with or without treatment. Unfavorable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score 5 to 6 at 3 months, and optimal DWI ‐ ASPECTS and Vol DWI for unfavorable outcome were assessed. In total, 198 patients (111 men, 77±13 years old) were enrolled. Median DWI ‐ ASPECTS was 7 (5‐9), and median Vol DWI was 55 (6‐134) mL . Among the patients, 72 (36%) patients underwent reperfusion therapy, and 83 (42%) had unfavorable outcomes. The threshold values for a malignant profile on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for DWI ‐ ASPECTS and Vol DWI were 4 (area under the curve 0.78, P <0.01; sensitivity 0.71, specificity 0.75) and 71 mL (area under the curve 0.80, P <0.01; sensitivity 0.76, specificity 0.77), respectively. Conclusions The cutoff values for our redefined malignant profile were DWI ‐ ASPECTS 4 and Vol DWI 71 mL with no selection bias for reperfusion therapy in the real‐world clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT 02251665

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations67
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207