Noncontrast Computed Tomography Markers as Predictors of Revised Hematoma Expansion in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) markers are the emerging predictors of hematoma expansion in intracerebral hemorrhage. However, the relationship between NCCT markers and the dynamic change of hematoma in parenchymal tissues and the ventricular system remains unclear. Methods and Results We included 314 consecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage admitted to our hospital from July 2011 to May 2017. The intracerebral hemorrhage volumes and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) volumes were measured using a semiautomated, computer-assisted technique. Revised hematoma expansion (RHE) was defined by incorporating the original definition of hematoma expansion into IVH growth. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to compare the performance of the NCCT markers in predicting the IVH growth and RHE. Of 314 patients in our study, 61 (19.4%) had IVH growth and 93 (23.9%) had RHE. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, blend sign, black hole sign, island sign, and expansion-prone hematoma could independently predict IVH growth and RHE in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Expansion-prone hematoma had a higher predictive performance of RHE than any single marker. The diagnostic accuracy of RHE in predicting poor prognosis was significantly higher than that of hematoma expansion. Conclusions The NCCT markers are independently associated with IVH growth and RHE. Furthermore, the expansion-prone hematoma has a higher predictive accuracy for prediction of RHE and poor outcome than any single NCCT marker. These findings may assist in risk stratification of NCCT signs for predicting active bleeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".