MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287877398 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.933753

Estimation of ischemic core in acute ischemic stroke with CT angiography and non-contrast CT: Attenuation changes in ASPECTS regions vs. automated ASPECTS scoring

2022· article· en· W4287877398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jing Li, Yuling Peng, Jiayang Liu, Jiajing Wu, Yunzhuo Yao, Sirun Gu, Zhiwei Zhang, Yi Li, Jingjie Wang, Yongmei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKey Technology Innovation Special of Key Industries of the Chongqing Science and Technology BureauChongqing Science and Technology Commission
KeywordsMedicineHounsfield scaleAngiographyStroke (engine)RadiologyContrast (vision)AttenuationWeightingQuartileInfarctionCore (optical fiber)CardiologyMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineComputed tomographyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Reperfusion therapies for acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) are highly time-dependent, and large infarction is related to poor outcomes and risk of symptomatic hemorrhage. It is of significance to investigate and optimize the screening means and selection criteria for reperfusion therapies to identify more appropriate patients with better outcomes. This study aimed to compare the performance of attenuation changes vs. automated Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and using CT angiography (CTA) source images vs. non-contrast CT (NCCT) in distinguishing the infarction extent of ischemic core volumes ≥ 70 ml within different time windows. Methods: A total of 73 patients with AIS-LVO who received multimodal CT were analyzed. The automated software was used to calculate ASPECTS. Attenuation change was defined as the sum of products of relative Hounsfield unit (rHU) values times weighting factors of all 10 ASPECTS regions. rHU value of each region was the HU of the ischemic side over that of the contralateral. The corresponding weighting factors were the regression coefficients derived from a multivariable linear regression model which was used to correlate regional rHU with ischemic core volumes, because each region in the ASPECTS template is weighted disproportionally in the ASPECTS system. Automated ASPECTS and attenuation changes were both calculated using CTA and NCCT, respectively. Results: = 0.373); using CTA (AUC = 0.842) was not different from NCCT (AUC = 0.838). Conclusion: Attenuation changes in ASPECTS regions were correlated with ischemic core volumes. In the classification of infarction volumes, attenuation changes had a high diagnostic ability comparable with automated ASPECTS. Measurement of attenuation changes is not involved in complicated scoring algorithms. This measurement can be used as an available, rapid, reliable, and accurate means to evaluate infarction extent within different time windows. The usefulness of infarction volumes measured by attenuation changes to identify more appropriate patients for reperfusion therapies can be validated in future clinical trials.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 spread0.231 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207