Performance of Automated Attenuation Measurements at Identifying Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke on CT Angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is routinely used to detect large-vessel occlusion (LVO) in patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke; however, visual analysis is time consuming and prone to error. To evaluate solutions to support imaging triage, we tested performance of automated analysis of CTA source images (CTASI) at identifying patients with LVO. METHODS: Stroke patients with LVO were selected from a prospectively acquired cohort. A control group was selected from consecutive patients with clinically suspected stroke without signs of ischemia on CT perfusion (CTP) or infarct on follow-up. Software-based automated segmentation and Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements were performed on CTASI for all regions of the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS). We derived different parameters from raw measurements and analyzed their performance to identify patients with LVO using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The retrospective analysis included 145 patients, 79 patients with LVO stroke and 66 patients without stroke. The parameters hemispheric asymmetry ratio (AR), ratio between highest and lowest regional AR and M2-territory AR produced area under the curve (AUC) values from 0.95-0.97 (all p < 0.001) for detecting presence of LVO in the total population. Resulting sensitivity (sens)/specificity (spec) defined by the Youden index were 0.87/0.97-0.99. Maximum sens/spec defined by the specificity threshold ≥0.70 were 0.91-0.96/0.77-0.83. Performance in a small number of patients with isolated M2 occlusion was lower (AUC: 0.72-0.85). CONCLUSION: Automated attenuation measurements on CTASI identify proximal LVO stroke patients with high sensitivity and specificity. This technique can aid in accurate and timely patient selection for thrombectomy, especially in primary stroke centers without CTP capacity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".