MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018932293 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.wp413

Abstract WP413: Portable, Bedside, Point of Care Magnetic Resonance Imaging in an Intensive Care Setting for Intracranial Hemorrhage

2020· article· en· W3018932293 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley A. Cahn, Jill Shah, Samantha By, E. Brian Welch, Laura Sacolick, Matthew Ming Fai Yuen, Mercy H. Mazurek, Charles Wira, Audrey C. Leasure, Charles Matouk, Adrienne Ward, Rachel Beekman, Stacy Brown, Guido J. Falcone, Kevin T. Gobeske, Nils Petersen, Adam Jasne, Richa Sharma, Joseph Schindler, Lauren Sansing, Emily J. Gilmore, Gordon Sze, Matthew S. Rosen, W. Taylor Kimberly, Kevin N. Sheth

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryNeuroimagingBleedMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyStroke (engine)Intracerebral hemorrhagePoint of careKappaNuclear medicineAcute strokeSubarachnoid hemorrhageSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Radiographic diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a critical determinant of stroke care pathways requiring patient transport to a neuroimaging suite. Advances in low-field MRI have made it possible to obtain clinically useful imaging at the point of care (POC). Aim: The aim of this study was to obtain preliminary data regarding the ability of a bedside POC MRI scanner to detect ICH. Methods: We studied 36 patients with a diagnosis of ICH (n=18) or ischemic stroke (n=18). Five blinded readers independently evaluated T2W and FLAIR exams acquired prospectively on a 64 mT, portable bedside MRI system (Hyperfine Research, Inc). Kappa coefficients (κ) were calculated to determine inter-rater agreement. Ground truth was obtained from the clinical report of the closest conventional imaging study (17.9 ± 10.4 hours) and verified by a core reader. For each exam, majority consensus among raters was used to determine sensitivity. Results: ICH volume ranged from 4 to 101 cc (median of 13 cc). Exams were acquired within 7 days of symptom onset (51.1 ± 28.8 hours). A pathologic lesion was identified on every exam with 100% sensitivity. Sensitivity for distinguishing any hemorrhage was 89% and specificity was 83%. The mean sensitivity and specificity for individual raters was 79% and 69%, respectively. When limited to supratentorial hemorrhage, consensus sensitivity was 94%. For ICH cases detected by all raters (n=9), there was 100% accuracy for localizing the bleed (lobar vs. non-lobar) with perfect agreement among raters (κ = 1, p <0.0001). There was substantial agreement for identifying intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (κ = 0.72, p < 0.0001). Sensitivity for IVH was 100% based on rater consensus. Figure 1 shows a POC exam with an ICH and IVH. Conclusions: These data suggest that low-field, POC MRI may be used to detect hemorrhagic stroke at the bedside. Further work is needed to evaluate this approach in the hyperacute setting and across a wide range of ICH characteristics.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207