Validity and reliability of a quantitative computed tomography score in predicting outcome of hyperacute stroke before thrombolytic therapy. ASPECTS Study Group. Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) must be done before thrombolytic treatment of hyperacute ischaemic stroke, but the significance of early ischaemic change on CT is unclear. We tested a quantitative CT score, the Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECTS). METHODS: 203 consecutive patients with ischaemic stroke were treated with intravenous alteplase within 3 h of symptom onset in two North American teaching hospitals. All pretreatment CT scans were prospectively scored. The score divides the middle-cerebral-artery territory into ten regions of interest. Primary outcomes were symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage and 3-month functional outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of ASPECTS for the primary outcomes were calculated. Logistic regression was used to test the association between the score on ASPECTS and the primary outcomes. FINDINGS: Ischaemic changes on the baseline CT were seen in 117 (75%) of 156 treated patients with anterior-circulation ischaemia included in the analysis (23 had ischaemia in the posterior circulation and 24 were treated outside the protocol). Baseline ASPECTS value correlated inversely with the severity of stroke on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (r=-0.56, p<0.001). Baseline ASPECTS value predicted functional outcome and symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (p<0.001, p=0.012, respectively). The sensitivity of ASPECTS for functional outcome was 0.78 and specificity 0.96; the values for symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage were 0.90 and 0.62. Agreement between observers for ASPECTS, with knowledge of the affected hemisphere, was good (kappa statistic 0.71-0.89). INTERPRETATION: This CT score is simple and reliable and identifies stroke patients unlikely to make an independent recovery despite thrombolytic treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".