MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362671370 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1170955

Validation of two automated ASPECTS software on non-contrast computed tomography scans of patients with acute ischemic stroke

2023· article· en· W4362671370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhongping Chen, Zhen-Zhen Shi, Fei Lu, Linna Li, Mingyang Li, Shuo Wang, Wenxin Wang, Yongxin Li, Yu Luo, Dan Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeople's Government of Jilin Province
KeywordsComputed tomographyMedicineContrast (vision)Stroke (engine)Ischemic strokeAcute strokeRadiologyMedical physicsIschemiaInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) was designed for semi-quantitative assessment of early ischemic changes on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We evaluated two automated ASPECTS software in comparison with reference standard. Methods NCCT of 276 AIS patients were retrospectively reviewed (March 2018–June 2020). A three-radiologist consensus for ASPECTS was used as reference standard. Imaging data from both baseline and follow-up were evaluated for reference standard. Automated ASPECTS were calculated from baseline NCCT with 1-mm and 5-mm slice thickness, respectively. Agreement between automated ASPECTS and reference standard was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlation of automated ASPECTS with baseline stroke severity (NIHSS) and follow-up ASPECTS were evaluated using Spearman correlation analysis. Results In score-based analysis, automated ASPECTS calculated from 5-mm slice thickness images agreed well with reference standard (software A: ICC = 0.77; software B: ICC = 0.65). Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the mean differences between automated ASPECTS and reference standard were ≤ 0.6. In region-based analysis, automated ASPECTS derived from 5-mm slice thickness images by software A showed higher sensitivity (0.60 vs. 0.54), lower specificity (0.91 vs. 0.94), and higher AUC (0.76 vs. 0.74) than those using 1-mm slice thickness images (p < 0.05). Automated ASPECTS derived from 5-mm slice thickness images by software B showed higher sensitivity (0.56 vs. 0.51), higher specificity (0.87 vs. 0.81), higher accuracy (0.80 vs. 0.73), and higher AUC (0.71 vs. 0.66) than those using 1-mm slice thickness images (p < 0.05). Automated ASPECTS were significantly associated with baseline NIHSS and follow-up ASPECTS. Conclusion Automated ASPECTS showed good reliability and 5 mm was the optimal slice thickness.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Neurology→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→