MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139088509 · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109645

Novel flat-panel cone-beam CT compared to multi-detector CT for assessment of acute ischemic stroke: A prospective study

2021· article· en· W3139088509 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Nicholson, Nicole M Cancelliere, John Bracken, Erik Hummel, Fred van Nijnatten, P.J. Withagen, Peter van de Haar, Bertan Hallacoglu, Marijke van Vlimmeren, Ronit Agid, Timo Krings, Vítor Mendes Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Radiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImage qualityCone beam ctRadiologyImage noiseStroke (engine)Nuclear medicineProspective cohort studyCone beam computed tomographyGold standard (test)Flat panel detectorComputed tomographySurgeryDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging assessment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) in the angiosuite may improve stroke workflow and decrease time to recanalization. In order for this workflow to gain widespread acceptance, current CBCT imaging needs further development to improve image quality. Our study aimed to compare the image quality of a new CBCT protocol performed directly in the angiosuite with imaging from multidetector CT as a gold standard. METHODS: AIS patients with an LVO who were candidates for endovascular treatment were prospectively included in this study. Following conventional multidetector CT (MDCT), patients underwent unenhanced cone beam CT (XperCT, Philips) imaging in the angiosuite, using two different protocols: a standard 20.8 s XperCT and/or an improved 10.4 s XperCT protocol. Images were evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: We included 65 patients in the study. Patients received CBCT imaging prior to endovascular treatment; 18 patients were assessed with a standard 20.8 s protocol scans and 47 with a newer 10.4 s scan. The quantitative analysis showed that the mean contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was significantly higher for the newer 10.4 s protocol compared with the 20.8 s protocol (2.08 +/- 0.64 vs. 1.15 +/- 0.27, p < 0.004) and the mean image noise was significantly lower for the 10.4 s XperCTs when compared with the 20.8 s XperCTs (6.30 +/- 1.34 vs. 7.82 +/- 2.03, p=<0.003). Qualitative analysis, including 6 measures of image quality, demonstrated that 74.1 % of the 10.4 s XperCT scans were ranked as 'Acceptable' for assessing parenchymal imaging in AIS patients(scoring 3-5 points on a 5-point Likert-scale), compared with 32.4 % of the standard 20.8 s XperCT and 100 % of the MDCT scans. Compared to the MDCT studies, 83 % of the 10.4 s XperCT scans were deemed sufficient image quality for a direct-to-angiosuite selection, compared to only 11 % for the standard 20.8 s scans. The largest image quality improvements included grey/white matter differentiation (59 % improvement), and reduction of image noise and artefacts (63 % & 50 % improvement, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Continued advances in cone-beam CT allow marked improvements in image quality for the assessment of brain parenchyma, which supports a direct-to-angiosuite approach for AIS patients eligible for thrombectomy treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of RadiologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207