MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408274099 · doi:10.1186/s12883-025-04107-6

A multicenter validation and calibration of automated software package for detecting anterior circulation large vessel occlusion on CT angiography

2025· article· en· W4408274099 on OpenAlexaff
Kyu Sun Yum, Jong‐Won Chung, Sue Young Ha, Kwang‐Yeol Park, Dong‐Ick Shin, Hong‐Kyun Park, Yong‐Jin Cho, Keun‐Sik Hong, Jae Guk Kim, Soo Joo Lee, Joon‐Tae Kim, Woo‐Keun Seo, Oh Young Bang, Gyeong‐Moon Kim, Myung-Jae Lee, Dongmin Kim, Leonard Sunwoo, Hee‐Joon Bae, Wi‐Sun Ryu, Beom Joon Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersMinistry of Health and Welfare
KeywordsMedicineOcclusionComputed tomography angiographyRadiologyAngiographyLogistic regressionStroke (engine)Multicenter studyCalibrationMulticenter trialPopulationConfidence intervalNuclear medicineMiddle cerebral arteryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialStatisticsIschemiaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To validate JLK-LVO, a software detecting large vessel occlusion (LVO) on computed tomography angiography (CTA), within a multicenter dataset. METHODS: From 2021 to 2023, we enrolled patients with ischemic stroke who underwent CTA within 24-hour of onset at six university hospitals for validation and calibration datasets and at another university hospital for an independent dataset for testing model calibration. The diagnostic performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity across the entire study population and specifically in patients with isolated middle cerebral artery (MCA)-M2 occlusion. We calibrated LVO probabilities using logistic regression and by grouping LVO probabilities based on observed frequency. RESULTS: After excluding 168 patients, 796 remained; the mean (SD) age was 68.9 (13.7) years, and 57.7% were men. LVO was present in 193 (24.3%) of patients, and the median interval from last-known-well to CTA was 5.7 h (IQR 2.5-12.1 h). The software achieved an AUC of 0.944 (95% CI 0.926-0.960), with a sensitivity of 89.6% (84.5-93.6%) and a specificity of 90.4% (87.7-92.6%). In isolated MCA-M2 occlusion, the AUROC was 0.880 (95% CI 0.824-0.921). Due to sparse data between 20 and 60% of LVO probabilities, recategorization into unlikely (0-20% LVO scores), less likely (20-60%), possible (60-90%), and suggestive (90-100%) provided a reliable estimation of LVO compared with mathematical calibration. The category of LVO probabilities was associated with follow-up infarct volumes and functional outcome. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, we proved the clinical efficacy of the software in detecting LVO on CTA.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207