Leptomeningeal Collaterals and Infarct Progression in Patients With Acute Large‐Vessel Occlusion and Low NIHSS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Approximately 10% of patients with acute ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) have mild neurological deficits. Although leptomeningeal collaterals (LMCs) are the major determinant of clinical outcomes for patients with acute ischemic stroke with LVO, the contribution of baseline LMC status to subsequent infarct progression in patients with mild stroke with LVO is poorly defined. Methods: This observational study included patients with acute anterior circulation LVO and mild stroke symptoms (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale < 6) from a prospectively collected, multicenter, national stroke registry. The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score was quantified on the initial and follow-up images. An infarct progression, defined as any Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score decrease between the initial versus follow-up scans, was categorized as either 0/1/2+. The LMCs on the baseline images were graded as good, fair, or poor. Results: Of the 623 included patients (mean age, 67.6±13.4 years; 380 [61.0%] men; 186 [29.9%] with reperfusion treatment), the baseline LMC was graded as good in 331 (53.1%), fair in 219 (35.2%), and poor in 73 (11.7%). The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score decrement was noted as 0 in 288 (46%) patients, 1 in 154 (24%), and 2+ in 181 (29%). A poor LMC was associated with an infarct progression (adjusted odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.22-3.47]). Conclusions: Poor collateral blood flow was associated with infarct progression in patients with acute ischemic stroke with LVO and mild symptoms. In this selective population, early assessment of collateral blood flow status can help in early detection of patients susceptible to infarct progression.
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".