MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3191909878 · doi:10.21037/qims-21-337

Hemodynamics derived from computational fluid dynamics based on magnetic resonance angiography is associated with functional outcomes in atherosclerotic middle cerebral artery stenosis

2021· article· en· W3191909878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiahua Wu, Peng Wang, Leilei Zhou, Danfeng Zhang, Qian Chen, Cunnan Mao, Wen Su, Yingsong Huo, Jin Peng, Xindao Yin, Guozhong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineHemodynamicsStenosisLogistic regressionMagnetic resonance angiographyMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyInternal medicineFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryMiddle cerebral arteryModified Rankin ScaleComputed tomography angiographyAngiographyStroke (engine)RadiologyIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: To investigate the relationship between fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) vascular hyperintensity (FVH), hemodynamics, and functional outcome in atherosclerotic middle cerebral artery (MCA) stenosis using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model based on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), according to a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months. Methods: A total of 120 patients with 50–99% atherosclerotic MCA stenosis were included. The training and internal validation groups were composed of 99 participants and 21 participants, respectively. Demographic, imaging data, and functional outcome (mRS at 3 months) were collected. Hemodynamic parameters were obtained from the CFD model. The FVH score was based on the number of territories where FVH is positive, according to the spatial distribution in the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS). The prediction models were constructed according to clinical and hemodynamic parameters using multivariate logistic analysis. The DeLong test compared areas under the curves (AUCs) of the models. Results: The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at admission, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, the ratio of wall shear stress before treatment (WSSRbefore), and difference in the ratio of wall shear stress (WSSR) were independently associated with functional outcome (all P<0.05). In the training group before treatment, the AUC of model 1a (only clinical variables) and 2a (clinical variables with addition of WSSRbefore) were 0.750 and 0.802. After treatment, the AUC of model 1b (only clinical variables) and 2b (clinical variables with addition of difference in WSSR) were 0.815 and 0.883, respectively. The AUC of models with hemodynamic parameters was significantly higher than the models based on clinical variables only (all P<0.05, DeLong test). In the internal validation group before treatment, the AUC of the model (clinical variables) was 0.782, and that of the model (clinical variables and WSSRbefore) was 0.800. After treatment, the AUC of the model (clinical variables) was 0.833, and that of the model (clinical variables and difference in WSSR) was 0.861. There were no significant differences between the good and the poor functional outcome group concerning FVHbefore scores before treatment (0.30±0.81 vs. 0.26±0.97; P=0.321) and FVHafter scores after treatment (0.08±0.39 vs. 0.00±0.00; P=0.244). Conclusions: Hemodynamics was associated with functional outcomes in patients with ischemic stroke attributed to atherosclerotic MCA stenosis, while FVH was not. Hemodynamic parameters were of great importance in the prediction models.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→