Multi-Mode Imaging Scale for Endovascular Therapy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke (META)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With the guidance of multi-mode imaging, the time window for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has been expanded to 24 h. However, poor clinical outcomes are still not uncommon. We aimed to develop a multi-mode imaging scale for endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke (META) to predict the neurological outcome in patients receiving endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Methods: We included consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with occlusion of middle cerebral artery and/or internal carotid artery who underwent EVT. Poor outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3−6 at 3 months. A five-point META score was constructed based on clot burden score, multi-segment clot, the Alberta Stroke Program early computed tomography score of cerebral blood volume (CBV-ASPECTS), and collateral status. We evaluated the META score performance using area under the curve (AUC) calculations. Results: A total of 259 patients were included. A higher META score was independently correlated with poor outcomes at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.690, 95% CI, 1.340 to 2.132, p < 0.001) after adjusting for age, hypertension, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and baseline blood glucose. Patients with a META score ≥ 2 were less likely to benefit from EVT (mRS 3−6: 60.8% vs. 29.2%, p < 0.001). The META score predicted poor outcomes with an AUC of 0.714, higher than the Pittsburgh Response to Endovascular therapy (PRE) score, the totaled health risks in vascular events (THRIVE) score (AUC: 0.566, 0.706), and the single imaging marker in the scale. Conclusions: The novel META score could refine the predictive accuracy of prognosis after EVT, which might provide a promising avenue for future automatic imaging analysis to help decision making.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".