MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402580791 · doi:10.1007/s10278-024-01258-9

Automated ASPECTS Segmentation and Scoring Tool: a Method Tailored for a Colombian Telestroke Network

2024· article· en· W4402580791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E Ramírez Ortiz, Juan Carlos Vásquez Rivera, Manuel F. Granja, Nelson Agudelo, Marcela Hernández Hoyos, Antonio J. Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de los AndesMinisterio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación ProductivaMinisterio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineCartographyData scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate our two non-machine learning (non-ML)-based algorithmic approaches for detecting early ischemic infarcts on brain CT images of patients with acute ischemic stroke symptoms, tailored to our local population, to be incorporated in our telestroke software. One-hundred and thirteen acute stroke patients, excluding hemorrhagic, subacute, and chronic patients, with accessible brain CT images were divided into calibration and test sets. The gold standard was determined through consensus among three neuroradiologist. Four neuroradiologist independently reported Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scores (ASPECTSs). ASPECTSs were also obtained using a commercial ML solution (CMLS), and our two methods, namely the Mean Hounsfield Unit (HU) relative difference (RELDIF) and the density distribution equivalence test (DDET), which used statistical analyze the of the HUs of each region and its contralateral side. Automated segmentation was perfect for cortical regions, while minimal adjustment was required for basal ganglia regions. For dichotomized-ASPECTSs (ASPECTS < 6) in the test set, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.85 for the DDET method, 0.84 for the RELDIF approach, 0.64 for the CMLS, and ranged from 0.71-0.89 for the neuroradiologist. The accuracy was 0.85 for the DDET method, 0.88 for the RELDIF approach, and was ranged from 0.83 - 0.96 for the neuroradiologist. Equivalence at a margin of 5% was documented among the DDET, RELDIF, and gold standard on mean ASPECTSs. Noninferiority tests of the AUC and accuracy of infarct detection revealed similarities between both DDET and RELDIF, and the CMLS, and with at least one neuroradiologist. The alignment of our methods with the evaluations of neuroradiologist and the CMLS indicates the potential of our methods to serve as supportive tools in clinical settings, facilitating prompt and accurate stroke diagnosis, especially in health care settings, such as Colombia, where neuroradiologist are limited.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.420 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Imaging Informatics in MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207