MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406992620 · doi:10.1161/str.56.suppl_1.86

Abstract 86: Location-Specific Hematoma Volume Tolerance for Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage

2025· article· en· W4406992620 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Brissette, Menglu Ouyang, Vignan Yogendrakumar, Tim Ramsay, Ranjeeta Mallick, Andrea Morotti, Joshua N. Goldstein, Craig S. Anderson, Dar Dowlatshahi

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageHematomaSpontaneous intracerebral hemorrhageStroke (engine)Intracerebral hematomaSurgerySubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hematoma volume is an important predictor of outcome in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Location-specific hematoma volume thresholds are associated with poor outcome and can inform surgical trial inclusion criteria and clinical decision rules for hematoma evacuation. In a pooled trial dataset, we evaluated associations between ICH location, hematoma volume thresholds, and patient outcomes. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the ATACH-2 clinical trial. We evaluated the associations between intraparenchymal location-specific hematoma volume cutoffs (thalamic, basal ganglia, and lobar) and poor outcome (mRS 4-6; primary outcome) or mortality (secondary outcome) at 3 months. Using semi-automated volumetric assessments of 24-hour CT scans, we applied volume cutoffs at 5 mL increments starting at ≤5 mL up to >50 mL. We also applied Youden’s method for each hematoma location to determine the optimal location-specific volume thresholds that predict outcomes. We calculated odds ratios (OR) of poor outcome through multivariable logistic regression models for each location, adjusted for age, sex, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, hemisphere location, and intraventricular hemorrhage extension. Results: Out of 949 patients included for analysis, 358, 485 and 106 were diagnosed with thalamic, basal ganglia ICH and lobar ICH, respectively. Location-specific hematoma volume cutoffs most predictive of a poor outcome (mRS 4-6) calculated with Youden’s index were 6.6 mL for thalamic ICH (OR 5.72, 95% CI 3.22-10.18; p<0.0001), 23.1 mL for basal ganglia ICH (OR 14.11, 95% CI 8.21-24.27; p<0.0001) and 24.4 mL for lobar ICH (OR 8.22, 95% CI 2.3-29.36; p=0.0012). For our secondary outcome, Youden’s lobar ICH cutoff of 42.5mL was the most predictive of mortality. Predictive performances for Youden’s method are shown in Table 1, and for all thresholds shown in Figure 1. Conclusion: Hematoma volumes associated with poor outcome and mortality vary by location, supporting the notion that different brain regions have different “hematoma volume tolerances”; good outcomes are unlikely when ICH volume exceeds that brain region’s tolerance. Our results provide important data for location-specific hematoma volume tolerance to inform clinical trials and clinical decision rules in ICH management.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207