Table_3_Validation of two automated ASPECTS software on non-contrast computed tomography scans of patients with acute ischemic stroke.DOCX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose<p>The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) was designed for semi-quantitative assessment of early ischemic changes on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We evaluated two automated ASPECTS software in comparison with reference standard.</p>Methods<p>NCCT of 276 AIS patients were retrospectively reviewed (March 2018–June 2020). A three-radiologist consensus for ASPECTS was used as reference standard. Imaging data from both baseline and follow-up were evaluated for reference standard. Automated ASPECTS were calculated from baseline NCCT with 1-mm and 5-mm slice thickness, respectively. Agreement between automated ASPECTS and reference standard was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlation of automated ASPECTS with baseline stroke severity (NIHSS) and follow-up ASPECTS were evaluated using Spearman correlation analysis.</p>Results<p>In score-based analysis, automated ASPECTS calculated from 5-mm slice thickness images agreed well with reference standard (software A: ICC = 0.77; software B: ICC = 0.65). Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the mean differences between automated ASPECTS and reference standard were ≤ 0.6. In region-based analysis, automated ASPECTS derived from 5-mm slice thickness images by software A showed higher sensitivity (0.60 vs. 0.54), lower specificity (0.91 vs. 0.94), and higher AUC (0.76 vs. 0.74) than those using 1-mm slice thickness images (p < 0.05). Automated ASPECTS derived from 5-mm slice thickness images by software B showed higher sensitivity (0.56 vs. 0.51), higher specificity (0.87 vs. 0.81), higher accuracy (0.80 vs. 0.73), and higher AUC (0.71 vs. 0.66) than those using 1-mm slice thickness images (p < 0.05). Automated ASPECTS were significantly associated with baseline NIHSS and follow-up ASPECTS.</p>Conclusion<p>Automated ASPECTS showed good reliability and 5 mm was the optimal slice thickness.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".