2013 Canadian Stroke Congress Abstracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Clot length on CT/CTA has been used to predict recanalization with thrombolytic treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke(AIS).We compared different techniques of measuring clot length on CT/CTA to identify the most reliable method.Methods: 4 1 patients with M1-MCA occlusions from INTERRSeCT, a prospective imaging based cohort study of AIS patients, were included.Hyperdense sign was measured on NCCT(5mm slice thickness).Clot length was measured on CTA at 3mm and 24mm-slices in the axial and coronal plane by:1) measuring the non-visualized segment of M1-MCA and 2) calculating ratio of residual lumen length within M1-MCA segment to length of contralateral patent M1-MCA segment.Two readers analyzed all images independently and were blinded to CTA when reading NCCT.Level of concordance between raters for each method was calculated using Cohen's kappa for categorical variables and Intra-class Correlation Coefficient(ICC type2, single measure).A method has high inter-rater reliability if the level of concordance is high.Results: Measuring residual lumen ratio on CTA(3mm) is the most reliable technique for measuring clot length.Measuring length of hyperdense sign on NCCT is fairly reliable.Direct clot length measurements on CTA are only reliable if done on 24mm CTA slices using MIP.Conclusion: Reliability of clot length assessment and its interaction with treatment type in predicting recanalization depends on the type of imaging modality and technique used.CTA remains the best tool to measure clot length. O1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.574 | 0.376 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".