Importance of computed tomography angiography in acute/hyperacute ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the importance of computed tomography and computed tomography angiography (CTA) in stroke protocols, as well as their impact on endovascular treatment and on the determination of the etiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Were evaluated 28 patients with acute/hyperacute stroke in the anterior circulation who underwent intracranial and cervical CTA between April 2018 and August 2019. The parameters evaluated were the degree of stenosis, plaque characteristics, type of infarct, treatment, etiology, and the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS). RESULTS: Of the 28 patients evaluated, 16 (57.1%) had an ASPECTS of 10 (the maximum score, indicative of normality). Four patients (14.3%) underwent thrombolytic treatment, and seven (25.0%) underwent mechanical thrombectomy. The etiology was atherosclerosis in 32.1% of the patients, cerebral small-vessel disease in 7.1%, cardioembolic in 7.1%, and undetermined in 53.6%. Regarding plaque, 17.9% of the patients presented stenosis ≥ 50%, 21.4% presented stable plaques, and 42.9% presented vulnerable plaques. Patients with a lower ASPECTS were more likely to have relevant stenosis and were more likely to have a total infarct. CONCLUSION: In the evaluation of patients with acute/hyperacute strokes, CTA provides important information, identifying occlusion, as well as helping define the etiology and inform decisions regarding 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".