Association of Ischemic Core Imaging Biomarkers With Post-Thrombectomy Clinical Outcomes in the MR CLEAN Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A considerable proportion of acute ischemic stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) are dead or severely disabled at 3 months despite successful reperfusion. Ischemic core imaging biomarkers may help to identify patients who are more likely to have a poor outcome after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) despite successful reperfusion. We studied the association of CT perfusion-(CTP), CT angiography-(CTA), and non-contrast CT-(NCCT) based imaging markers with poor outcome in patients who underwent EVT in daily clinical practice. Methods: We included EVT-treated patients (July 2016–November 2017) with an anterior circulation occlusion from the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry with available baseline CTP, CTA, and NCCT. We used multivariable binary and ordinal logistic regression to analyze the association of CTP ischemic core volume, CTA-Collateral Score (CTA-CS), and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) with poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) 5-6) and likelihood of having a lower score on the mRS at 90 days. Results: In 201 patients, median core volume was 13 (IQR 5-41) mL. Median ASPECTS was 9 (IQR 8-10). Most patients had grade 2 (83/201; 42%) or grade 3 (28/201; 14%) collaterals. CTP ischemic core volume was associated with poor outcome [aOR per 10 mL 1.02 (95%CI 1.01–1.04)] and lower likelihood of having a lower score on the mRS at 90 days [aOR per 10 mL 0.85 (95% CI 0.78–0.93)]. In multivariable analysis, neither CTA-CS nor ASPECTS were significantly associated with poor outcome or the likelihood of having a lower mRS. Conclusion: In our population of patients treated with EVT in daily clinical practice, CTP ischemic core volume is associated with poor outcome and lower likelihood of shift toward better outcome in contrast to either CTA-CS or ASPECTS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".