Prognostic value of CBV index in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy in late therapeutic window
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the prognostic value of the cerebral blood volume (CBV) index for 90-day functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated within a late therapeutic window. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent pre-treatment computed tomography perfusion (CTP) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for large-vessel occlusion (LVO) of the anterior circulation within the late therapeutic window between January 2021 and February 2023. Clinical data, the Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) based on unenhanced computed tomography (CT), and perfusion parameters, including ischemic core, hypoperfusion volume, mismatch volume between the core and penumbra, and CBV index, were assessed and compared between patients who achieved favorable outcomes (defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2). Results Of the 118 patients, 56 (47.5%) had favorable outcomes. In the univariate analysis, age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission, ASPECTS score, CBV index, and ischemic core volume were significantly associated with functional outcomes (P < 0.05). In multivariate analyses, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.060; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.013–1.110, P = 0.012), NIHSS score at admission (OR, 1.126; 95% CI 1.031–1.229, P = 0.009), and CBV index (OR, 0.001; 95% CI 0.000–0.240, P = 0.014) were independent predictors of a 90-day favorable outcome. Conclusion A high CBV index was independently associated with favorable outcomes in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy within the late therapeutic window. In addition, a higher CBV index reflects improved blood flow and favorable digital subtraction angiography collateral status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".