The Utility of Automated ASPECTS in Acute Ischemic Stroke for Intravenous Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator (IV-rtPA) Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy and clinical significance of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based automated Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (ASPECT) scoring software of head CT for the indication of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) therapy. Methods: This study included two populations of acute ischemic stroke: one comprised patients who had undergone head CT within 48 h of presentation (Population #1, n = 448), while the other included patients within 4.5 h from onset (Population #2, n = 132). The primary endpoint was the concordance rate of ASPECTS of the neurologists and AI software against the benchmark score. The secondary endpoints were to validate the accuracy of the neurologist and AI software in assessing the ability to rule out extensive infarction (ASPECTS of 0–5) in population #2. Results: The reading accuracy of AI software was comparable to that of the board-certified vascular neurologists. The detection rate of cardiogenic cerebral embolism was better than that of atherothrombotic cerebral infarction. By excluding extensive infarction, AI-software showed a higher specificity and equivalent sensitivity compared to those of experts. Conclusions: The AI software for ASPECTS showed convincing agreement with expert evaluation and would be supportive in determining the indications of intravenous rt-PA therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".