FLAIR vascular hyperintensity combined with asymmetrical prominent veins in acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke: prediction of collateral circulation and clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the value of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery vascular hyperintensity (FVH) within asymmetrical prominent veins sign (APVS) on susceptibility-weighted imaging predicting collateral circulation and prognosis in patients with acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke. METHOD: Patients with severe stenosis or occlusion of ICA or MCA M1, who underwent MRI within 72 h from stroke onset were reviewed. The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score was used to evaluate the volume of infarction on DWI, the degree of FVH and APVS. Spearman correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between FVH and APVS. All patients were divided into the good prognosis group and the poor prognosis group according to the score of the modified ranking scale (mRS) 90 days after the stroke. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the relationship between FVH and APVS and functional prognosis, while receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to assess the value of FVH and APVS in predicting prognosis. RESULTS: Spearman correlation analysis revealed moderate positive correlations between FVH and APVS (r = 0.586, P < 0.001). The poor prognosis group had a higher rate of a history of atrial fibrillation, a larger cerebral infarction volume, a higher NIHSS score at admission, and a higher FVH and APVS score compared with the good prognosis group (all P < 0.05). A further logistic regression indicated that the NIHSS score, cerebral infarction volume, FVH and APVS were independent risk factors for a poor functional prognosis. In terms of FVH, APVS, alone and their combination for the diagnosis of poor prognosis, the sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were 86.8%, 83.3%, 0.899 (95% CI 0.830-0.968); 60.5%, 93.7%, 0.818 (95% CI 0.723-0.912); 86.8%, 89.6%, 0.921 (95% CI 0.860-0.981), respectively. CONCLUSION: The presence of FVH and APVS can provide a comprehensive assessment of collateral circulation from the perspective of veins and arteries, and the correlation between the two is positively correlated. Both of them were independent risk factors for poor prognosis, their combination is complementary and can improve the predictive value.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".