Abstract WMP61: Simultaneous Cerebral Blood Flow And Blood Volume Thresholding Produces Consistent Volumes Between Computed Tomography Perfusion Deconvolution Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) allows estimation of infarct volume in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but significant differences have been reported between CTP deconvolution algorithms. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that cerebral blood flow (CBF) and blood volume (CBV) dual thresholding estimates infarct volumes accurately and remain consistent between deconvolution algorithms. Methods: Data were from the open-source ISLES dataset, which comprised of patients with acute ischemic stroke who received admission CTP and infarct delineated from diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) acquired <3 hours of CTP and prior to treatment. CBF and CBV maps were calculated with a model-independent (filtered Fourier Transform) and a model-dependent (box-tail model) deconvolution algorithm using identical arterial input functions and Gaussian-filtered source images. Infarct was estimated using standard CBF<30% relative to the contralateral hemisphere and a CBF<30%+CBV<38% dual threshold. Volume agreement between DWI and CTP lesions was determined by the mean difference ± standard deviation (DWI minus CTP). Consistency of CTP lesion volumes between deconvolution algorithms was characterized by the Pearson correlation (r) and a paired t-test. Results: Of 63 included patients, median DWI lesion volume was 28.0 (interquartile range: 13.3 to 57.2) ml. With model-independent and model-dependent deconvolution, respectively, mean differences were 35.7±40.4 ml and 10.9±47.6 ml using CBF<30%, and 37.1±40.2 ml and 28.5±28.6 ml using CBF+CBV thresholding. Between model-independent and model-dependent CTP lesion volumes, Pearson correlation was moderate for CBF<30% (r=0.645, p<0.001) and excellent for CBF+CBV thresholding (r=0.903, p<0.001). Paired t-tests were significant for both CBF<30% and CBF+CBV thresholding (p<0.001). Conclusions: CBF+CBV lesion volumes had improved consistency between deconvolution algorithms while achieving similar agreement to DWI lesion volumes compared to the standard CBF<30% threshold. Further adjustment of CBF+CBV thresholds are required to improve accuracy to DWI lesion volumes but show promise in standardizing CTP lesion volumes across deconvolution algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".