MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225160102 · doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6ns1.6413

Correlation of the degree of carotid stenosis and area of cerebral infarct in ischaemic stroke patients

2022· article· en· W4225160102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sowmya Chikatla, Akash Rajaram, Aditi Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisInternal carotid arteryCarotid endarterectomyCardiologyInternal medicineRadiologyMiddle cerebral arteryMagnetic resonance imagingStroke (engine)Context (archaeology)Ischemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: To evaluate the degree of internal carotid artery stenosis in acute cerebral infarcts and to correlate it with the area of infarct. Aims: A) To calculate the area of acute cerebral infarct by manual tracing and the degree of internal carotid artery stenosis using NASCET score. B) To calculate the ASPECT score of the cerebral infarct. C) To correlate degree of internal carotid artery stenosis, the area of infarct and ASPECT score. Settings and Design: Hospital based retrospective study. Methods and Material: A retrospective study from January 2018 to January 2020 was conducted on 51 patients with acute ischemic infarct involving the internal carotid artery territory (ICA) due to stenosis of the intra or extracranial ICA. In this study we correlated the infarct area as measured by diffusion weighted magnetic resonance (DWI MRI), Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and degree of carotid stenosis on MR angiography and carotid doppler using North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) score. Statistical analysis used: Mc Nemar test was used to correlate ICA stenosis by NASCET score with the area of infarct. Pearson’s correlation was used to correlate ASPECT score and infarct volume.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

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 venueInternational Journal of Health SciencesSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207