MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407341219 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.047680

Comparison of Noncontrast Computed Tomography, Multiphase Computed Tomography Angiography, and Computed Tomography Perfusion to Assess Infarct Growth Rate in Acute Stroke

2025· article· en· W4407341219 on OpenAlexaffabout
Umberto Pensato, Salome Bosshart, Alexander Stebner, Dar Dowlatshahi, Oh Young Bang, Demetrios J. Sahlas, Thalia S. Field, Volker Puetz, Brian Buck, Michael D. Hill, Mayank Goyal, Andrew M. Demchuk, Johanna M. Ospel

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)RadiologyInterquartile rangeComputed tomography angiographyPerfusion scanningPerfusionModified Rankin ScaleAngiographyInternal medicineIschemiaIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infarct growth rate is remarkably heterogeneous in acute ischemic stroke, reflecting diverse clinical-physiological phenotypes. We compared different methods of estimating infarct growth rate in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing thrombectomy using multimodal computed tomography (CT) stroke imaging. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the international ESCAPE-NA1 trial (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke) which evaluated the effect of nerinetide in patients with large vessel occlusion undergoing thrombectomy. Infarct growth rate was estimated leveraging each component of multimodal stroke CT imaging: (1) 10 minus baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) divided by hours elapsed from symptom onset on noncontrast CT (ASPECTS decay per hour); (2) collateral status on multiphase CT angiography (mCTA), and (3) hypoperfusion intensity ratio on CT perfusion. Patients were dichotomized into intermediate and slow progressors (since fast progressors were likely to be excluded from ESCAPE-NA1 based on trial enrollment criteria) according to median ASPECTS decay, presence of good versus moderate/poor mCTA collaterals, and median hypoperfusion intensity ratio, respectively. Associations between progressor phenotypes and 90-day modified Rankin Scale score were assessed across neuroimaging modalities using adjusted logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Among 1105 patients enrolled in ESCAPE-NA1 between 2017 and 2019, 619 (56.0%) were assessed for progressor phenotypes using noncontrast CT, 1084 (98.1%) with mCTA, and 415 (37.6%) with CT perfusion. Median ASPECTS decay per hour was 1.05 (interquartile range, 0.05-1.85), 188/1084 (17%) patients had good collateral status on mCTA, and the median hypoperfusion intensity ratio was 0.44 (interquartile range, 0.28-0.59). Intermediate progressors showed worse functional outcomes compared with slow progressors only in CT perfusion strata: adjusted common odds ratio for modified Rankin Scale ordinal shift analysis of 1.69 (95% CI, 1.14-2.49). No significant association between progressor phenotypes and 90-day modified Rankin Scale was seen when the noncontrast CT and the mCTA approaches were used. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke progressor phenotypes based on CT perfusion criteria (using the hypoperfusion intensity ratio approach) were associated with clinical outcomes, while stroke progressor phenotypes based on noncontrast CT (ASPECTS decay) and mCTA (collateral status) criteria were not.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207