MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3017514318 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.tp417

Abstract TP417: An Autoregulation-Derived Prediction Model for Midline Shift After Ischemic Stroke

2020· article· en· W3017514318 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Silverman, Anson Wang, Sreeja Kodali, Sumita Strander, Alexandra Kimmel, Cindy Khanh Nguyen, Krithika Umesh Peshwe, Charles Matouk, W. Taylor Kimberly, Kevin N. Sheth, Can Ozan Tan, Nils Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyStroke (engine)HemodynamicsInternal medicineTranscranial Doppler

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Identification of patients likely to develop midline shift (MLS) after large-vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke is essential for appropriate triage and patient disposition. Studies have identified clinical and radiographic predictors of MLS, but with limited accuracy. Using an innovative assessment of cerebral autoregulation, we sought to develop an accurate predictive model for MLS. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 73 patients with LVO stroke. Beat-by-beat cerebral blood flow (transcranial Doppler) and arterial pressure (arterial catheter or finger photoplethysmography) were recorded within 24 hours of the stroke, and a 24-hour brain MRI was obtained to determine infarct volume and MLS. Autoregulatory function was quantified from pressure-flow relation via projection pursuit regression (PPR), allowing for characterization of 5 hemodynamic markers (Figure 1A). We assessed the predictive relation of autoregulatory capacity and radiological and clinical variables to MLS using recursive classification tree models. Results: PPR successfully quantified autoregulatory function in 50/73 (68.5%) patients within 24 hours of LVO ischemic stroke (age 63.9±13.6, 66% F, NIHSS 15.8±6.7). Of these 50 patients, most (78%) underwent endovascular therapy. Thirteen (26%) experienced 24-h MLS; in these patients, infarct volumes were larger (140.2 vs. 48.6 mL, P<0.001 ), and ipsilateral (but not contralateral) falling slopes were steeper (1.1 vs. 0.7 cm·s -1 ·mmHg -1 , P=0.001 ). Among all clinical, demographic, and hemodynamic variables, only two (infarct volume, ipsilateral falling slope) significantly contributed to prediction of MLS (accuracy 94%; Figure 1B). Conclusions: This predictive model of MLS wields translatable potential for triaging level of care in patients suffering from LVO ischemic stroke, but further research, including optimization of the PPR algorithm as well as prospective use of the predictive model, is needed.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→