MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4319004983 · doi:10.1161/str.54.suppl_1.tp140

Abstract TP140: Association Between Optimal Mismatch Ratio And Favorable Outcome By ASPECTS And Ischemic Core Volume

2023· article· en· W4319004983 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroyuki Kida, Takeshi Yoshimoto, Manabu Inoue, Masatoshi Koga, Masafumi Ihara, Ḱazunori Toyoda

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeThrombolysisModified Rankin ScaleReceiver operating characteristicPerfusion scanningArea under the curveStroke (engine)Internal medicineCardiologyPerfusionNuclear medicineIschemic strokeIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We aimed to clarify the association between optimal mismatch ratio and favorable outcome of acute ischemic stroke-large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) patients who underwent endovascular therapy (EVT) by Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic Score (ASPECTS) and ischemic core volume (ICV). Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients from 2017 to 2021 with prestroke modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores of 0 to 2 who were available for computed tomography perfusion or perfusion-weighted imaging before treatment and underwent EVT for anterior AIS-LVO within 24 hours from onset. Patients with ICV less than 10 mL or those who did not achieve successful recanalization with extended Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction scale score ≥2b were excluded. We dichotomized patients by ASPECTS (≥6 and <6), and then by ICV (≤70 mL and >70 mL). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and to identify the optimal mismatch ratio for achieving favorable outcome, defined as mRS score 0 to 2 at 3 months. Results: Eighty patients (women, 31; median age, 75 [interquartile range (IQR), 69-83] years; median NIHSS score, 19 [14-24]; median ASPECTS, 7 (IQR, 6-9); median ICV, 32 (IQR, 16-64) mL] were enrolled. Of these, 45 (56%) patients had favorable outcomes. The threshold of optimal mismatch ratio for favorable outcomes were 11.2 in patients with ASPECTS ≥6 [area under curve (AUC) 0.55, P=0.47; sensitivity 0.25, specificity 0.92], 3.1 in those with ASPECTS <5 (AUC 0.36, P=0.43; sensitivity 0.40, specificity 0.70), 11.2 in those with ICV <70 mL (AUC 0.52, P=0.84; sensitivity 0.24, specificity 0.92), and 3.6 in those with ICV ≥71 mL (AUC 0.55, P=0.82; sensitivity 0.50, specificity 0.90). Conclusions: The cut-off values of optimal mismatch ratio for favorable outcomes were 11 in patients with ASPECTS ≥6 or ICV <70 mL, and approximately 3 in those with large ICV.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→