CT after interhospital transfer in acute ischemic stroke: Imaging findings and impact of prior intravenous contrast administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke patients routinely undergo interhospital transfer to endovascular thrombectomy capable centers. Imaging is often repeated with residual intravenous (IV) iodine contrast at post-transfer assessment. We determined imaging findings and the impact of residual contrast on secondary imaging. Anterior circulation LVO stroke patients were selected out of a consecutive cohort. Directly admitted patients were contrast naïve, and transferred patients had previously received IV iodine contrast for stroke assessment at the referring hospital. Two independent readers rated the visibility of residual contrast on non-contrast computed tomography (CT) after transfer and assessed the hyperdense vessel sign. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate the association of the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS) with prior contrast administration, time from symptom onset (TFSO), and CTP ischemic core volume in both directly admitted and transferred patients. Results We included 161 patients, with 62 (39%) transferred and 99 (62%) directly admitted patients. Compared between these groups, transferred patients had a longer TFSO-to-imaging at our institution (median: 212 vs. 75 min, p < 0.001) and lower ASPECTS (median: 8 vs. 9, p < 0.001). Regression analysis presented an independent association of ASPECTS with prior contrast administration (β = −0.25, p = 0.004) but not with TFSO (β = −0.03, p = 0.65). Intergroup comparison between transferred and directly admitted patients pointed toward a stronger association between ASPECTS and CTP ischemic core volume in transferred patients (β = −0.39 vs. β = −0.58, p = 0.06). Detectability of the hyperdense vessel sign was substantially lower after transfer (66 vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Conclusion Imaging alterations due to residual IV contrast are frequent in clinical practice and render the hyperdense vessel sign largely indetectable. Larger studies are needed to clarify the influence on the association between ASPECTS and ischemic core.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".