MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389750144 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207922

MRI vs CT for Baseline Imaging Evaluation in Acute Large Artery Ischemic Stroke

2023· article· en· W4389750144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joachim Fladt, Johannes Kaesmacher, Thomas R. Meinel, Lukas Bütikofer, Daniel Strbian, Omer Eker, Jean‐François Albucher, Hubert Desal, Gaultier Marnat, Chrysanthi Papagiannaki, Sébastien Richard, Manuel Requena, Bertrand Lapergue, Paolo Pagano, Marielle Ernst, Martin Wiesmann, Marion Boulanger, David S. Liebeskind, Jan Gralla, Urs Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenentechSchweizerische HerzstiftungSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungStrykerCSL BehringSchweizerischen Neurologischen GesellschaftBiogenAlexion PharmaceuticalsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Baseline (sea)Ischemic strokeCardiologyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyAcute strokeInternal medicineIschemiaTissue plasminogen activator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Whether MRI or CT is preferable for the evaluation of patients with suspected stroke remains a matter of debate, given that the imaging modality acquired at baseline may be a relevant determinant of workflow delays and outcomes with it, in patients with stroke undergoing acute reperfusion therapies. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial that investigated noninferiority of thrombectomy alone vs IV thrombolysis (IVT) + thrombectomy in patients with an acute ischemic anterior circulation large vessel occlusive stroke eligible to receive IVT within 4.5 hours after last seen well, we tested for a potential interaction between baseline imaging modality (MRI/MR-angiography [MRA] vs CT/CT-angiography [CTA]) and the effect of acute treatment (thrombectomy vs IVT + thrombectomy) on clinical and safety outcomes and procedural metrics (primary analysis). Moreover, we examined the association between baseline imaging modality and these outcomes using regression models adjusted for age, sex, baseline NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS), occlusion location, and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (secondary analysis). Endpoints included workflow times, the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 90 days, the rate of successful reperfusion, the odds for early neurologic deterioration within 24 hours, and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. The imaging modality acquired was chosen at the discretion of the treating physicians and commonly reflects center-specific standard procedures. RESULTS: = 0.021) compared with those with CT/CTA. In terms of the primary analysis, we found no evidence for an interaction between baseline imaging modality and the effect of IVT + thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Regarding the secondary analysis, MRI/MRA acquisition was associated with workflow delays of approximately 20 minutes, higher odds of functional independence at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.56), and similar mortality rates (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36-1.47) compared with CT/CTA. DISCUSSION: This post hoc analysis does not suggest treatment effect heterogeneity of IVT + thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone in large artery stroke patients with different imaging modalities. There was no evidence that functional outcome at 90 days was less favorable following MRI/MRA at baseline compared with CT/CTA, despite significant workflow delays. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192332.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207