Dynamic CTA-Derived Perfusion Maps Predict Final Infarct Volume: The Simple Perfusion Reconstruction Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarct core volume measurement using CTP (CT perfusion) is a mainstay paradigm for stroke treatment decision-making. Yet, there are several downfalls with cine CTP technology that can be overcome by adopting the simple perfusion reconstruction algorithm (SPIRAL) derived from multiphase CTA. We compare SPIRAL with CTP parameters for the prediction of 24-hour infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients had admission NCCT, multiphase CTA, CTP, and 24-hour DWI. All patients had successful/quality reperfusion. Patient-level and cohort-level receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to determine accuracy. A 10-fold cross-validation was performed on the cohort-level data. Infarct core volume was compared for SPIRAL, CTP–time-to-maximum, and final DWI by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: When we compared the accuracy in patients with early and late reperfusion for cortical GM and WM, there was no significant difference at the patient level (0.83 versus 0.84, respectively), cohort level (0.82 versus 0.81, respectively), or the cross-validation (0.77 versus 0.74, respectively). In the patient-level receiver operating characteristic analysis, the SPIRAL map had a slightly higher, though nonsignificant (P < .05), average receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (cortical GM/WM, r = 0.82; basal ganglia = 0.79, respectively) than both the CTP–time-to-maximum (cortical GM/WM = 0.82; basal ganglia = 0.78, respectively) and CTP-CBF (cortical GM/WM = 0.74; basal ganglia = 0.78, respectively) parameter maps. The same relationship was observed at the cohort level. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement for SPIRAL and time-to-maximum infarct volume were similar compared with 24-hour DWI. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that perfusion maps generated from a temporally sampled helical CTA are an accurate surrogate for infarct core.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".