New insight in massive cerebral infarction predictions after anterior circulation occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To predict massive cerebral infarction (MCI) occurrence after anterior circulation occlusion (ACO) by cASPECTS-CTA-CS (combined ASPECTS and CTA-CS). Of 185 cerebral infarction patients with the ACO, their collateral circulation scores from CT angiography (CTA) images in two groups (MCI and non-MCI) were evaluated using Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) and CT angiography collateral score (CTA-CS) approaches. The cASPECTS-CTA-CS was validated internally using the bootstrap sampling method with 1000 bootstrap repetitions and compared to CTA-CS. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC), clinical impact curve (CIC), and decision curve analysis (DCA) strategies were used to assess the clinical practicality and predictability of both approaches (cASPECTS-CTA-CS and CTA-CS). Using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analyses, discrimination levels of the cASPECTS-CTA-CS were compared with CTA-CS. Classification and regression tree (CART) analyses was conducted to identify the best predictive values and identify subgroup of MCI. The discrimination ability of collateral circulation evaluation score using the cASPECTS-CTA-CS [AUC: 0.918, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.869-0.967, P < 0.01; NRI: 0.200, 95% CI: -0.104 to 0.505, P = 0.197; and IDI: 0.107, 95% CI: 0.035-0.178, P = 0.004] was better than CTA-CS alone (AUC: 0.885, 95% CI: 0.833-0.937, P < 0.01). DCA indicated the net benefits of the cASPECTS-CTA-CS approach was higher than CTA-CS alone when the threshold probability range over 20%. CIC analyses showed that the number of high risks and true positives were in agreement when the threshold probability > 80%. Less than 23 of cASPECTS-CTA-CS by CART was important factor in determining MCI occurrence, and ASPECTS < 7 was followed factor. The cASPECTS-CTA-CS approach cumulatively predicted MCI after ACO.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".