MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406992695 · doi:10.1161/str.56.suppl_1.tp187

Abstract TP187: Automated Assessment of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Volumes using the VIOLA tool Performs Similarly to ABC/2 in Predictive Modelling

2025· article· en· W4406992695 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Potter, Eva B. Aamodt, Karim Borei, Osman Khan, Abdulaziz Bako, Alan Pan, Qinghui Liu, Bradley J. MacIntosh, Farhaan Vahidy

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageStroke (engine)Artificial intelligenceInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Hemorrhage volume is a key prognostic characteristic for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients and has been included as an aspect of critical assessments, such as the ICH score. Hemorrhage measurement can be time consuming, prompting the value of automated hemorrhage assessment tools. Many of these, however, remain unvalidated in predictive models. We compared the performance of the VIOLA deep learning model (developed at www.crai.no) against the conventional ABC/2 method. Methods: An ICH group was created by randomly sampling from the Registry for Neurological Endpoint Assessment among patients with Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke (REINAH) database, which that includes completed hemorrhage characteristic assessments (location, laterality, volume calculated via ABC/2, and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) presence). Computed tomography (CT) images used for ABC/2 calculations were retrieved, and the previous trained VIOLA deep learning tool was deployed locally to calculate the volume of parenchymal and intraventricular hemorrhage. ICH volumes were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, and separate multivariable logistic regression models to predict in-hospital mortality were fit, including patient demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, and volume quartiles, and adjusted odds ratios are reported. Akaike information criteria (AIC) was used to compare separate ABC/2 and VIOLA models. Results: A total of 407 patients were retrieved from RIENAH. Included patients had a median age of 68 [55-77], were 42.8% female, 43.7% White, 18.7% Black, 22.4% Hispanic, 9.6% Asian, and 5.7% Other/Declined. IVH was present in 48.4% of the cohort and 24.6% experienced in-hospital mortality. Hemorrhages assessed via VIOLA yielded a median of 23.70 [7.02-69.18] cm 3 , significantly higher than those determined by ABC/2 (14.33 [5.19-37.47] cm 3 ,p<0.001), and more patients showed volumes over 30cm 3 using VIOLA (78 (43.7%) vs 131 (32.2%)). In logistic regression modelling, patients with top-quartile hemorrhage volumes in either ABC/2 or VIOLA assessment had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (ABC/2 aOR: 3.32 [1.01-10.94]; VIOLA: 4.50 [1.33-15.19]). The VIOLA-based model showed similar AIC to the ABC/2 model, indicating roughly equivalent model fit (263.9 vs 261.9) Discussion: Hemorrhage volume assessment using the VIOLA tool performed comparably than ABC/2 in prognostic modelling and provides a viable alternative to manual assessment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207