Comparative Evaluation of Imaging Modalities for Eligibility in Endovascular Treatment of Delayed Onset Acute Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke in Siriraj Hospital: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this study is to evaluate the consistency between CTP according to the endovascular therapy following imaging evaluation for ischemic stroke (DEFUSE-3) criteria and other standard computed tomography (CT) imaging modalities, such as multi-phase CT angiography (MCTA) and unenhanced computed tomography (UECT), in assessing patient eligibility for EVT as determined by neurointerventionists evaluations. Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis included 64 patients with anterior circulation stroke and onset between 6 to 12 hours or unknown onset. Two neuro-interventionalists independently reviewed images and assessed eligibility for EVT based on the Alberta stroke program early CT score (ASPECTS) derived from UECT and collateral score obtained from MCTA. The results were then compared to CTP, utilizing the DEFUSE-3 criteria. Results: Out of the 64 cases analyzed (mean age: 69 years ± 13.9 [SD]), 61 met DEFUSE-3 criteria for EVT by CTP, while 54 were deemed eligible based on an ASPECTS ≥ 6 and collateral score ≥ 3. Agreement between the modalities was moderate (Kappa coefficient score 0.4). When patients with ASPECTS score < 6 were excluded, concordance improved to perfect (Kappa coefficient score 1.0). Hence, concordance was significantly associated with ASPECTS scores ≥ 6 (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients experiencing anterior circulation stroke with onset between 6 to 12 hours or unknown onset, excluding an ASPECTS score of 6 or higher, MCTA and UECT proved to be reliable for assessing endovascular treatment eligibility. These modalities may serve as substitutes for CTP and offer support in the clinical decisionmaking process.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".