Differential Risk Factors for Hematoma Expansion in Deep and Lobar Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the risk factors for hematoma expansion (HE) in different regions of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) can help in the development of more accurate HE prediction tools and in implementing more effective clinical treatment interventions. This study aims to investigate the risk factors for HE in patients with lobar and deep ICH. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 558 cases of primary supratentorial ICH from Tongji Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University. Patients were categorized into lobar ICH and deep ICH groups. Differential analysis of ICH characteristics at different locations was performed, followed by subgroup analysis based on HE occurrence. Binary logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for HE in each group. RESULTS: Among the 404 patients with ICH who underwent follow-up noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) scans, the proportion with HE was similar in the deep ICH group (23.2%) and the lobar ICH group (22.7%). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that fluid level (odds ratio [OR] 4.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-13.06), admission Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.96), and time from onset to NCCT examination (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94) were independently associated with HE in the deep ICH group. In the lobar ICH group, irregular shape (OR 4.96, 95% CI 1.37-18.01) and fibrinogen level (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.86) were significant risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid level, low admission Glasgow Coma Scale score, and shorter time from onset to NCCT are independent predictors of HE in deep ICH, whereas irregular shape and low fibrinogen levels are independent predictors of HE in lobar ICH. These findings are of great significance for elucidating the mechanisms underlying HE in different locations of ICH and for developing precise predictive models of HE.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".