MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157415748 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000025543

The diagnostic reliability and validity of noninvasive imaging modalities to assess leptomeningeal collateral flow for ischemic stroke patients

2021· review· en· W3157415748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chaohua Cui, Ye Hong, Jiajia Bao, Li He

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisKappaFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryRadiologyStroke (engine)Area under the curveReceiver operating characteristicCochrane LibraryObservational studyNuclear medicineInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Leptomeningeal collateral flow (LMF) is associated with infarct area and clinical outcome for ischemic stroke patients. Although LMF can be detected by multiple imaging methods, but their diagnostic performance is uncertain.The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic validity or reliability of noninvasive image methods in assessing LMF.Databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library.Original observational cohort studies.Ischemic stroke patients.Different noninvasive image methods to assess LMF.Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of the studies; forest plot to show pooled results; I2 and Egger test to evaluate the heterogeneity and publication bias.Thirty of the 126 selected studies were eligible. For CT angiography, the interobserver agreement ranged from 0.494 to 0.93 and weighted kappa was 0.888; for patients receiving thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, 0.68 to 0.91; 0.494 to 0.89 for the 2-point system, 0.60 to 0.93 for the 3-point system, 0.68 to 0.87 for the system of >4 points; area under the curve (AUC) was 0.78. For perfusion computed tomography (CTP), the interobserver agreement ranged from 0.724 to 0.872; for patients receiving thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, 0.74 to 0.872; 0.724 for the 2-point system, 0.783 to 0.953 for the 3-point system; the intraobserver agreement was 0.884; AUC was 0.826. For MRI-fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), the interobserver agreement ranged from 0.58 to 0.86; for patients receiving thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, 0.75 to 0.86; 0.86 for the two-point system, 0.77 to 0.87 for the system of more than 5 points; AUC was 0.82.No pooled data of CTP and FLAIR. The difference cohort study had difference bias. The unpublished data were not included.CT angiography is a good tool for assessing LMF. CTP shows a good validity and reliability, but its diagnostic value needs more evidence. FLAIR is a good modality to assess LMF. These image methods had better validity and reliability to evaluate LMF of patients receiving thrombolysis or endovascular treatment than all ischemic stroke patients.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207