Prediction of tissue outcome in acute ischemic stroke based on single-phase CT angiography at admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In acute ischemic stroke, prediction of the tissue outcome after reperfusion can be used to identify patients that might benefit from mechanical thrombectomy (MT). The aim of this work was to develop a deep learning model that can predict the follow-up infarct location and extent exclusively based on acute single-phase computed tomography angiography (CTA) datasets. In comparison to CT perfusion (CTP), CTA imaging is more widely available, less prone to artifacts, and the established standard of care in acute stroke imaging protocols. Furthermore, recent RCTs have shown that also patients with large established infarctions benefit from MT, which might not have been selected for MT based on CTP core/penumbra mismatch analysis. Methods: = 404) and 238 patients undergoing MT with successful reperfusion were included for final analysis. Ground truth infarct lesions were segmented on 24 h follow-up CT scans. Pre-processed CTA images were used as input for a U-Net-based convolutional neural network trained for lesion prediction, enhanced with a spatial and channel-wise squeeze-and-excitation block. Post-processing was applied to remove small predicted lesion components. The model was evaluated using a 5-fold cross-validation and a separate test set with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) as the primary metric and average volume error as the secondary metric. Results: The mean ± standard deviation test set DSC over all folds after post-processing was 0.35 ± 0.2 and the mean test set average volume error was 11.5 mL. The performance was relatively uniform across models with the best model according to the DSC achieved a score of 0.37 ± 0.2 after post-processing and the best model in terms of average volume error yielded 3.9 mL. Conclusion: 24 h follow-up infarct prediction using acute CTA imaging exclusively is feasible with DSC measures comparable to results of CTP-based algorithms reported in other studies. The proposed method might pave the way to a wider acceptance, feasibility, and applicability of follow-up infarct prediction based on artificial intelligence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".