MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196118867 · doi:10.3233/ch-219106

Dynamic perfusion analysis in acute ischemic stroke: A comparative study of two different softwares

2021· article· en· W3196118867 on OpenAlex
Cornelius Krusche, Carolina Río Bártulos, Mazen Abu‐Mugheisib, Michael Haimerl, Philipp Wiggermann

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenumbraMedicineStroke (engine)PerfusionPerfusion scanningRadiologyNuclear medicineInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, decisions often must be made rapidly; therefore, automated software is useful for diagnostic support. Perfusion computed tomography and follow-up evaluation of perfusion data are valuable tools for selecting the optimal recanalization therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare commercially available software used to evaluate stroke patients prior to thrombectomy. METHODS: The performance of Olea Sphere (OlS) software vs. CT Neuro Perfusion from Syngo (Sy), as well as the electronic Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (e-ASPECTS) software vs. an experienced radiologist, were compared using descriptive statistics including significance analysis, Spearman's correlation, and the Bland-Altman agreement analysis. For this purpose, 43 data sets of patients with stroke symptoms related to the middle cerebral artery territory were retrospectively post-processed with both tools and analyzed. RESULTS: The automatic e-ASPECTS showed high agreement with an expert rater assessment of the ASPECTS. Using OlS and Sy, we compared the parameters for the ischemic core (relative cerebral blood flow), Time to maximum (Tmax) for the penumbra, and the relative mismatch between these two values. Overall, both software tools achieved good agreement, and their respective values correlated well with each other. However, OlS predicted significantly smaller infarct core volumes compared with Sy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the absolute values have a certain degree of variation, both software programs have good agreement with each other.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.347 · 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