Predicting DWI-FLAIR mismatch on NCCT: the role of artificial intelligence in hyperacute decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The presence of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) mismatch was used to determine eligibility for intravenous thrombolysis in clinical trials. However, due to the restricted availability of MRI and the ambiguity of image assessment, it is not widely implemented in clinical practice. Methods: A total of 222 acute ischemic stroke patients underwent non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT), DWI, and FLAIR within 1 h of one another. Human experts manually segmented ischemic lesions on DWI and FLAIR images and independently graded the presence of DWI-FLAIR mismatch. Deep learning (DL) models based on the nnU-net architecture were developed to predict ischemic lesions visible on DWI and FLAIR images using NCCT images. Inexperienced neurologists evaluated the DWI-FLAIR mismatch on NCCT images without and with the model's results. Results: The mean age of included subjects was 71.8 ± 12.8 years, 123 (55%) were male, and the baseline NIHSS score was a median of 11 [IQR, 6-18]. All images were taken in the following order: NCCT - DWI - FLAIR, starting after a median of 139 [81-326] min after the time of the last known well. Intravenous thrombolysis was administered in 120 patients (54%) after NCCT. The DL model's prediction on NCCT images revealed a Dice coefficient and volume correlation of 39.1% and 0.76 for DWI lesions and 18.9% and 0.61 for FLAIR lesions. In the subgroup with 15 mL or greater lesion volume, the evaluation of DWI-FLAIR mismatch from NCCT by inexperienced neurologists improved in accuracy (from 0.537 to 0.610) and AUC-ROC (from 0.493 to 0.613). Conclusion: The DWI-FLAIR mismatch may be reckoned using NCCT images through advanced artificial intelligence techniques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".