External Validation of <scp>e‐ASPECTS</scp> Software for Interpreting Brain CT in Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test e-ASPECTS software in patients with stroke. Marketed as a decision-support tool, e-ASPECTS may detect features of ischemia or hemorrhage on computed tomography (CT) imaging and quantify ischemic extent using Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS). METHODS: Using CT from 9 stroke studies, we compared software with masked experts. As per indications for software use, we assessed e-ASPECTS results for patients with/without middle cerebral artery (MCA) ischemia but no other cause of stroke. In an analysis outside the intended use of the software, we enriched our dataset with non-MCA ischemia, hemorrhage, and mimics to simulate a representative "front door" hospital population. With final diagnosis as the reference standard, we tested the diagnostic accuracy of e-ASPECTS for identifying stroke features (ischemia, hyperattenuated arteries, and hemorrhage) in the representative population. RESULTS: We included 4,100 patients (51% women, median age = 78 years, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] = 10, onset to scan = 2.5 hours). Final diagnosis was ischemia (78%), hemorrhage (14%), or mimic (8%). From 3,035 CTs with expert-rated ASPECTS, most (2084/3035, 69%) e-ASPECTS results were within one point of experts. In the representative population, the diagnostic accuracy of e-ASPECTS was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70-72%) for detecting ischemic features, 85% (83-86%) for hemorrhage. Software identified more false positive ischemia (12% vs 2%) and hemorrhage (14% vs <1%) than experts. INTERPRETATION: On independent testing, e-ASPECTS provided moderate agreement with experts and overcalled stroke features. Therefore, future prospective trials testing impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) software on patient care and outcome are required before widespread implementation of stroke decision-support software. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:943-957.
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 | 0.023 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".