Automated detection of early signs of irreversible ischemic change on CTA source images in patients with large vessel occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To create and validate an automated pipeline for detection of early signs of irreversible ischemic change from admission CTA in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively included 368 patients for training and 143 for external validation. All patients had anterior circulation LVO stroke, endovascular therapy with successful reperfusion, and follow-up diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). We devised a pipeline to automatically segment Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) regions and extracted their relative Hounsfield unit (rHU) values. We determined the optimal rHU cut points for prediction of final infarction in each ASPECT region, performed 10-fold cross-validation in the training set, and measured the performance via external validation in patients from another institute. We compared the model with an expert neuroradiologist for prediction of final infarct volume and poor functional outcome. RESULTS: We achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.69±0.13, 0.69±0.09, 0.61±0.23, and 0.72±0.11 across all regions and folds in cross-validation. In the external validation cohort, we achieved a median [interquartile] AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.71 [0.68-0.72], 0.70 [0.68-0.73], 0.55 [0.50-0.63], and 0.74 [0.73-0.77], respectively. The rHU-based ASPECTS showed significant correlation with DWI-based ASPECTS (rS = 0.39, p<0.001) and final infarct volume (rS = -0.36, p<0.001). The AUC for predicting poor functional outcome was 0.66 (95%CI: 0.57-0.75). The predictive capabilities of rHU-based ASPECTS were not significantly different from the neuroradiologist's visual ASPECTS for either final infarct volume or functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of an automated pipeline and predictive model based on relative HU attenuation of ASPECTS regions on baseline CTA and its non-inferior performance in predicting final infarction on post-stroke DWI compared to an expert human reader.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".