Validation of automated Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) software for detection of early ischemic changes on non-contrast brain CT scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In ASPECTS, 10 brain regions are scored visually for presence of acute ischemic stroke damage. We evaluated automated ASPECTS in comparison to expert readers. METHODS: Consecutive, baseline non-contrast CT-scans (5-mm slice thickness) from the prospective MR CLEAN trial (n = 459, MR CLEAN Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR1804) were evaluated. A two-observer consensus for ASPECTS regions (normal/abnormal) was used as reference standard for training and testing (0.2/0.8 division). Two other observers provided individual ASPECTS-region scores. The Automated ASPECTS software was applied. A region score specificity of ≥ 90% was used to determine the software threshold for detection of an affected region based on relative density difference between affected and contralateral region. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver-operating characteristic curves were calculated. Additionally, we assessed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for automated ASPECTS and observers in comparison to the reference standard in the test set. RESULTS: In the training set (n = 104), with software thresholds for a specificity of ≥ 90%, we found a sensitivity of 33-49% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.741-0.785 for detection of an affected ASPECTS region. In the test set (n = 355), the results for the found software thresholds were 89-89% (specificity), 41-57% (sensitivity), and 0.750-0.795 (AUC). Comparison of automated ASPECTS with the reference standard resulted in an ICC of 0.526. Comparison of observers with the reference standard resulted in an ICC of 0.383-0.464. CONCLUSION: The performance of automated ASPECTS is comparable to expert readers and could support readers in the detection of early ischemic changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".