Cerebral perfusion in patients with unilateral internal carotid artery occlusion by dual post-labeling delays arterial spin labeling imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global and regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes in patients with unilateral internal carotid artery occlusion (ICAO) are unclear when the dual post-labeling delays (PLD) arterial spin labeling (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique is used. Manual delineation of regions of interest for CBF measurement is time-consuming and laborious. AIM: To assess global and regional CBF changes in patients with unilateral ICAO with the ASL-MRI perfusion technique. METHODS: Twenty hospitalized patients with ICAO and sex- and age-matched controls were included in the study. Regional CBF was measured by Dr. Brain's ASL software. The present study evaluated differences in global, middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory, anterior cerebral artery territory, and Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) regions (including the caudate nucleus, lentiform nucleus, insula ribbon, internal capsule, and M1-M6) and brain lobes (including frontal, parietal, temporal, and insular lobes) between ICAO patients and controls at PLD 1.5 s and PLD 2.5 s. RESULTS: When comparing CBF between ICAO patients and controls, the global CBF in ICAO patients was lower at both PLD 1.5 s and PLD 2.5 s; the CBF on the occluded side was lower in 15 brain regions at PLD 1.5 s, and it was lower in 9 brain regions at PLD 2.5 s; the CBF in the contralateral hemisphere was lower in the caudate nucleus and internal capsule at PLD 1.5 s and in M6 at PLD 2.5 s. The global CBF in ICAO patients was lower at PLD 1.5 s than at PLD 2.5 s. The ipsilateral CBF at PLD 1.5 s was lower than that at PLD 2.5 s in 15 regions, whereas the contralateral CBF was lower at PLD 1.5 s than at PLD 2.5 s in 12 regions. The ipsilateral CBF was lower than the contralateral CBF in 15 regions at PLD 1.5 s, and in M6 at PLD 2.5 s. CONCLUSION: Unilateral ICAO results in hypoperfusion in the global and MCA territories, especially in the ASPECTS area. Dual PLD settings prove more suitable for accurate CBF quantification in ICAO.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".