Challenging the Ischemic Core Concept in Acute Ischemic Stroke Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular treatment is a highly effective therapy for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion and has recently revolutionized stroke care. Oftentimes, ischemic core extent on baseline imaging is used to determine endovascular treatment-eligibility. There are, however, 3 fundamental issues with the core concept: First, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which are mostly used in the acute stroke setting, are not able to precisely determine whether and to what extent brain tissue is infarcted (core) or still viable, due to variability in tissue vulnerability, the phenomenon of selective neuronal loss and lack of a reliable gold standard. Second, treatment decision-making in acute stroke is multifactorial, and as such, the relative importance of single variables, including imaging factors, is reduced. Third, there are often discrepancies between core volume and clinical outcome. This review will address the uncertainty in terminology and proposes a direction towards more clarity. This theoretical exercise needs empirical data that clarify the definitions further and prove its value.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".