MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111028803 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.030092

Computed Tomography Perfusion–Based Machine Learning Model Better Predicts Follow-Up Infarction in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke

2020· article· en· W3111028803 on OpenAlexaff
Hulin Kuang, Wu Qiu, Anna M.M. Boers, Scott Brown, Keith W. Muir, Charles B.L.M. Majoie, Diederik W.J. Dippel, Phil White, Jonathan Epstein, Peter Mitchell, Antoni Dávalos, Serge Bracard, Bruce Campbell, Jeffrey L. Saver, Tudor G. Jovin, Marta Rubiera, Alexander V. Khaw, Jai Shankar, Enrico Fainardi, Michael D. Hill, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mayank Goyal, Bijoy K. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Perfusion scanningComputed tomographyIschemic strokePerfusionCardiologyInfarctionRadiologyInternal medicineAcute strokeBrain ischemiaIschemiaMyocardial infarctionTissue plasminogen activator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Prediction of infarct extent among patients with acute ischemic stroke using computed tomography perfusion is defined by predefined discrete computed tomography perfusion thresholds. Our objective is to develop a threshold-free computed tomography perfusion–based machine learning (ML) model to predict follow-up infarct in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods: Sixty-eight patients from the PRoveIT study (Measuring Collaterals With Multi-Phase CT Angiography in Patients With Ischemic Stroke) were used to derive a ML model using random forest to predict follow-up infarction voxel by voxel, and 137 patients from the HERMES study (Highly Effective Reperfusion Evaluated in Multiple Endovascular Stroke Trials) were used to test the derived ML model. Average map, T max , cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and time variables including stroke onset-to-imaging and imaging-to-reperfusion time, were used as features to train the ML model. Spatial and volumetric agreement between the ML model predicted follow-up infarct and actual follow-up infarct were assessed. Relative cerebral blood flow <0.3 threshold using RAPID software and time-dependent T max thresholds were compared with the ML model. Results: In the test cohort (137 patients), median follow-up infarct volume predicted by the ML model was 30.9 mL (interquartile range, 16.4–54.3 mL), compared with a median 29.6 mL (interquartile range, 11.1–70.9 mL) of actual follow-up infarct volume. The Pearson correlation coefficient between 2 measurements was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74–0.86, P <0.001) while the volumetric difference was −3.2 mL (interquartile range, −16.7 to 6.1 mL). Volumetric difference with the ML model was smaller versus the relative cerebral blood flow <0.3 threshold and the time-dependent T max threshold ( P <0.001). Conclusions: A ML using computed tomography perfusion data and time estimates follow-up infarction in patients with acute ischemic stroke better than current methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207