Multiphase CT angiography perfusion maps for predicting target mismatch and ischemic lesion volumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of CT perfusion (CTP) acquisition protocols may limit the availability of target mismatch assessment at resource-limited hospitals. We compared CTP mismatch with a mismatch surrogate generated from a simplified dynamic imaging sequence comprising widely available non-contrast CT (NCCT) and multiphase CT angiography (mCTA). Consecutive patients with anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke who received NCCT, mCTA, and CTP were retrospectively included in this study. An mCTA-perfusion (mCTA-P) dynamic series was formed by co-registering NCCT and mCTA. We simulated an ideal mCTA-P study by down-sampling CTP (dCTP) dynamic images according to mCTA timing. Ischemic core and penumbra volumes were estimated by cerebral blood flow and Tmax thresholding, respectively, on perfusion maps calculated independently for CTP, dCTP, and mCTA-P by deconvolution. Concordance in target mismatch (core < 70 ml, penumbra ≥ 15 ml, mismatch ratio ≥ 1.8) determination by dCTP and mCTA-P versus CTP was assessed. Of sixty-one included patients, forty-six had a CTP target mismatch. Concordance with CTP profiles was 90% and 82% for dCTP and mCTA-P, respectively. Lower mCTA-P concordance was likely from differences in collimation width between NCCT and mCTA, which worsened perfusion map quality due to a CT number shift at mCTA. Moderate diagnostic agreement between CTP and mCTA-P was found and may improve with optimal mCTA scan parameter selection as simulated by dCTP. mCTA-P may be a pragmatic alternative where CTP is unavailable or the risks of additional radiation dose, contrast injections, and treatment delays outweigh the potential benefit of a separate CTP scan.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".