Image_1_Serial ASPECTS to predict stroke-associated pneumonia after thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke.JPEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background<p>Stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) is a serious complication in stroke patients, significantly increasing mortality. The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is a recognized predictor of acute ischemic stroke outcomes. We aimed to investigate the performance of serial ASPECTS assessments (baseline ASPECTS, 24-h ASPECTS, and change in ASPECTS) for predicting SAP in patients with thrombolyzed acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke (AACIS).</p>Materials<p>A retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients with thrombolyzed AACIS was conducted. Baseline and 24-h ASPECTS using non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT), complications of stroke, including SAP and swallowing dysfunction using the Modified Water Swallowing test, were collected. Baseline and 24-h ASPECTS were evaluated by a certified neurologist and neuroradiologist. The predictive performance was determined based on the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed to assess the impact of serial ASPECTS assessment on predicting SAP.</p>Results<p>Of the 345 patients with thrombolyzed AACIS in our study, 18.4% (64/345) experienced SAP. The patients’ median age was 62 years [interquartile range (IQR): 52–73], with 53.4% being male. The median NIHSS score was 11 points (IQR: 8–17). The ROC analysis revealed areas under the curve for predicting SAP with baseline ASPECTS, 24-h ASPECTS, and change in ASPECTS were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.69–0.82), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79–0.89), and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76–0.87), respectively. Of the three measures, 24-h ASPECTS was a better predictor of SAP (odds ratio: 5.33, 95%CI: 2.08–13.67, p < 0.001) and had a higher sensitivity (0.84 [95%CI, 0.74–0.92]) and specificity (0.79 [95%CI, 0.74–0.84]) than both baseline ASPECTS and change in ASPECTS.</p>Conclusion<p>24-h NCCT-ASPECTS outperformed both baseline ASPECTS and change in ASPECTS for predicting SAP. Notably, 24-h ASPECTS, with a cut-off value of ≤6, exhibited good predictive performance and emerged as the better predictor for SAP.</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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.007 |
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".