MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210261338 · doi:10.1161/svin.121.000157

Ex Vivo Thrombus Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features and Patient Clinical Data Enable Prediction of Acute Ischemic Stroke Cause

2022· article· en· W4210261338 on OpenAlexaff
Spencer D. Christiansen, Junmin Liu, María Bres Bullrich, Manas Sharma, Sachin Pandey, Melfort Boulton, Sebastián Fridman, Luciano A. Sposato, Maria Drangova

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingThrombusEmergency departmentMedicineMedical imagingStroke (engine)Medical physicsLibrary scienceRadiologyInternal medicineEngineeringComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cause of ischemic stroke often remains elusive even after full stroke workup is completed. Cardioembolic mechanisms in particular are frequently presumed but challenging to definitively diagnose. Quantitative thrombus texture analysis is emerging as a powerful tool for stroke characterization, having shown the ability to predict response to stroke treatment,1 but its ability to predict stroke cause and complement machine learning models built from standard clinical features has not been studied.2, 3 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of radiomics features extracted from quantitative magnetic resonance images of retrieved ischemic stroke thrombi (R2*(=1/T2*), quantitative susceptibility mapping, and fat fraction) to improve the accuracy of machine learning models built from clinical data for the prediction of cardioembolic stroke.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207