MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319006089 · doi:10.1161/str.54.suppl_1.wp108

Abstract WP108: A Novel Multiphase CTA Perfusion Tool Compared To CTP In Patients With Suspected Acute Ischemic Stroke

2023· article· en· W4319006089 on OpenAlexaff
Faysal Benali, Jianhai Zhang, Najratun Nayem Pinky, Fouzi Bala, Ibrahim Alhabli, Rotem Golan, Chris Duszynski, Wu Qiu, Bijoy K. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerfusion scanningIschemiaStroke (engine)PerfusionOcclusionRadiologyNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: We recently published a Machine Learning-based algorithm using mCTA (mCTAp) that generates perfusion maps of the brain, similar to CTP. Here, we aim to validate the clinical utility of mCTAp in detection of ischemia, it’s side, extent and location. Methods: One hundred and twenty-one subjects were included in the test dataset. These subjects had completed mCTAp (StrokeSENS) and CTP (4D; GE Healthcare) at baseline. After excluding 2/121 subjects due to poor image quality, a multi-reader-multi-case (n=119) study design was conducted with 3 experienced radiologists, reading post-processed maps (Tmax and rCBF) generated by both mCTAp and CTP. Both reading sessions were separated by a few days. All readers were blinded to modality and clinical information and the reading order was randomized between sessions. Core lab imaging assessments that used NCCT, mCTA and CTP were considered as ground truth. A mixed effect regression model with the reader as random effect variable was used to calculate the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for both imaging arms regarding ischemia detection, ischemia side, and occlusion site selection (i.e., ICA/M1[considered LVO], M2 or distal, ACA or PCA). The time required for image interpretation was compared between the two modalities. Results: The AUCs for detecting ischemia were comparable between mCTAp and CTP (0.85 [95%CI:0.8-0.9] and 0.84 [95%CI:0.8-0.9] respectively; p=0.43), the affected ischemic side (0.94 [0.92-0.97] and 0.96 [0.94-0.98] respectively; p=0.69), detecting a LVO (0.84 [0.8-0.9] and 0.86 [0.8-0.9]; p=0.31) and M2 or distal occlusions (0.8 [0.7-0.8] and 0.9 [0.84-0.92]; p=0.22). The median (IQR) time for interpretation was 62s (46-78) and 59s (42-69) for mCTAp and CTP respectively (p=0.15). Conclusion: mCTAp shows similar performances when compared to CTP in assisting readers to detect ischemia, location, and extent by using Tmax and rCBF perfusion maps.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207