MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221090071 · doi:10.1002/hbm.25845

Deep learning derived automated <scp>ASPECTS</scp> on non‐contrast <scp>CT</scp> scans of acute ischemic stroke patients

2022· article· en· W4221090071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zehong Cao, Jiaona Xu, Bin Song, Lizhou Chen, Tianyang Sun, Yichu He, Ying Wei, Guozhong Niu, Yu Zhang, Qianjin Feng, Zhongxiang Ding, Feng Shi, Dinggang Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsContrast (vision)Acute strokeStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeMedicineNeuroscienceIschemiaPsychologyInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke, ranked as the second leading cause of death worldwide. The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is considered as a systematic method of assessing ischemic change on non-contrast CT scans (NCCT) of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients, while still suffering from the requirement of experts' experience and also the inconsistent results between readers. In this study, we proposed an automated ASPECTS method to utilize the powerful learning ability of neural networks for objectively scoring CT scans of AIS patients. First, we proposed to use the CT perfusion (CTP) from one-stop stroke imaging to provide the golden standard of ischemic regions for ASPECTS scoring. Second, we designed an asymmetry network to capture features when comparing the left and right sides for each ASPECTS region to estimate its ischemic status. Third, we performed experiments in a large main dataset of 870 patients, as well as an independent testing dataset consisting of 207 patients with radiologists' scorings. Experimental results show that our network achieved remarkable performance, as sensitivity and accuracy of 93.7 and 92.4% in the main dataset, and 95.5 and 91.3% in the independent testing dataset, respectively. In the latter dataset, our analysis revealed a high positive correlation between the ASPECTS score and the prognosis of patients in 90DmRs. Also, we found ASPECTS score is a good indicator of the size of CTP core volume of an infraction. The proposed method shows its potential for automated ASPECTS scoring on NCCT images.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207