MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210734230 · doi:10.1161/str.53.suppl_1.131

Abstract 131: Multiphase CT Angiography Perfusion Vs. CT Perfusion In Predicting Final Infarction In Acute Stroke Patients

2022· article· en· W4210734230 on OpenAlexaff
Luis A. Souto Maior Neto, Houssam El‐Hariri, Rotem Golan, Seyed Hossein Mousavi, Ibukun Elebute, Chris Duszynski, Alireza Sojoudi, Wu Qiu, Bijoy K. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCircle Cardiovascular Imaging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerfusionVoxelPerfusion scanningRadiologyStroke (engine)InfarctionAngiographyNuclear medicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In acute ischemic stroke (AIS), Computed Tomography Perfusion (CT, CTP) is the most widely used technique for determining extent of tissue likely to die even after successful reperfusion. However, CTP results in higher radiation dose to the patient, is affected by motion, and is not widely available. Multiphase CT Angiography (mCTA), by contrast, is a low radiation extension to the ubiquitous CT Angiography workflow. Here, we evaluate StrokeSENS mCTA Perfusion, a software tool that uses mCTA to estimate brain tissue perfusion, and compare it to CTP in its ability to predict final infarction. Methods: 551 subjects with baseline mCTA, Non-contrast CT (NCCT), and CTP were included. Of these, 480 were part of the development dataset used to derive the mCTA Perfusion algorithm while the remaining 71 were included in the test dataset. T max and CBF perfusion maps were generated on CTP using GE CTP-4D Perfusion, and on mCTA using StrokeSENS mCTA Perfusion. Final infarction was manually segmented on 24-48h MRI/NCCT by 2 experts using ITK-SNAP. Voxel values from CTP and mCTA were assessed in their ability to predict final infarction at an individual patient level (AUC calculated for each patient, then averaged across patients) and for the combined patient data (voxels pooled across patients, then one AUC calculated), then compared (two-sided difference test p-value, p). Results: At patient level, mCTA Perfusion T max AUC was 77.7% (95% c.i.: [74%, 82%]) while CTP T max AUC was 74.6% (95% c.i.: [71%, 79%]), p=0.15. mCTA Perfusion CBF AUC was 68.5% (95% c.i.: [65%, 72%]) while CTP CBF AUC was 69.8% (95% c.i.: [67%, 73%]), p=0.43. In combined patient data analysis, mCTA perfusion T max AUC was 84.13% while CTP T max AUC was 81.36%, p=0. mCTA perfusion CBF AUC was 74.44% while CTP CBF AUC was 72.51%, p=0. Conclusion: StrokeSENS mCTA Perfusion software is similar to traditional CT Perfusion in its ability to predict final infarction in patients with acute ischemic 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)0.001
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→