Impact of Corticospinal Tract Involvement Beyond ASPECTS on Brain Imaging Prior to Endovascular Therapy in Patients with Large Ischemic Core
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score and core volume on preoperative imaging are key predictors of clinical outcomes following endovascular therapy in patients with a large ischemic core. Although the corticospinal tract is essential for motor function, its prognostic impact in patients with a large ischemic core remains unclear. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study analyzed preoperative imaging data from patients with Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score ≤5 who underwent endovascular therapy. The presence of lesions in the posterior corona radiata and lesions in the primary motor cortex was assessed. A good outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score ≤3 at 90 days. The association between lesions in the posterior corona radiata, lesions in the primary motor cortex, and good outcome was analyzed using univariable and stepwise multivariable logistic regression, with variable selection based on Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample size. RESULTS: Among 107 patients, 37 (34.6%) achieved a good outcome. In univariable analysis, neither lesions in the posterior corona radiata nor core volume was significantly associated with a good outcome. In stepwise multivariable logistic regression, modified Rankin Scale score before onset (odds ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.10-0.73]), cardioembolism (odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.76]), absence of lesions in the primary motor cortex involvement (odds ratio, 13.49 [95% CI, 3.75-63.45]), and shorter onset-to-reperfusion time (odds ratio, 0.996 [95% CI, 0.992-0.998]) were independent predictors. Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score and the absence of multiple artery occlusion were retained in the final model but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Absence of lesions in the primary motor cortex involvement was independently associated with good outcome after endovascular therapy in patients with large ischemic core, suggesting its potential utility as a complementary imaging marker in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".