MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169621013 · doi:10.1111/ene.14985

Blood–brain barrier leakage and hemorrhagic transformation: The Reperfusion Injury in Ischemic StroKe (RISK) study

2021· article· en· W3169621013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francesco Arba, Benedetta Piccardi, Vanessa Palumbo, Silvia Biagini, Francesco Galmozzi, Veronica Iovene, A Giannini, Giuseppe Dario Testa, Alessandro Sodero, Mascia Nesi, Davide Gadda, Marco Moretti, Maria Lamassa, Francesca Pescini, Anna Poggesi, Cristina Sarti, Stefania Nannoni, Giovanni Pracucci, Nicola Limbucci, Sergio Nappini, Leonardo Renieri, Stefano Grifoni, Enrico Fainardi, Domenico Inzitari, Patrizia Nencini

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisInterquartile rangeOdds ratioStroke (engine)Confidence intervalIntracerebral hemorrhageInternal medicineLogistic regressionSurgeryAnesthesiaMyocardial infarctionSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and purpose In patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with reperfusion therapy we aimed to evaluate whether pretreatment blood–brain barrier (BBB) leakage is associated with subsequent hemorrhagic transformation (HT). Methods We prospectively screened patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis and/or endovascular treatment. Before treatment, each patient received computed tomography (CT), CT angiography, and CT perfusion. We assessed pretreatment BBB leakage within the ischemic area using the volume transfer constant (Ktrans) value. Our primary outcome was relevant HT, defined as hemorrhagic infarction type 2 or parenchymal hemorrhage type 1 or 2. We evaluated independent associations between BBB leakage and HT using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, baseline stroke severity, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) ≥ 6, treatment type, and onset‐to‐treatment time. Results We enrolled 171 patients with available assessment of BBB leakage. The patients' mean (±SD) age was 75.5 (±11.8) years, 86 (50%) were men, and the median (interquartile range) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (12–23). A total of 32 patients (18%) received intravenous thrombolysis, 102 (60%) underwent direct endovascular treatment, and 37 (22%) underwent both. Patients with relevant HT (N = 31;18%) had greater mean BBB leakage (Ktrans 0.77 vs. 0.60; p = 0.027). After adjustment in the logistic regression model, we found that BBB leakage was associated both with a more than twofold risk of relevant HT (odds ratio [OR] 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–6.03 per Ktrans point increase; OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.06–5.17 for Ktrans values > 0.63 [mean BBB leakage value]) and with symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 4.30; 95% CI 1.13–13.77 per Ktrans point increase). Conclusion Pretreatment BBB leakage before reperfusion therapy was associated with HT, and may help to identify patients at risk of HT.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations74
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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