MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075715264

Cortical Venous Filling on Dynamic Computed Tomographic Angiography : A Novel Predictor of Clinical Outcome in Patients with Acute Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke

2016· article· en· W7075715264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUtrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle cerebral arteryModified Rankin ScaleLogistic regressionStroke (engine)AngiographyConfidence intervalComputed tomographic angiographyComputed tomographic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose-Venous flow in the downstream territory of an occluded artery may influence patient prognosis after ischemic stroke. Our aim was to study cortical venous filling (CVF) in a time-resolved manner with dynamic computed tomographic angiography and to assess the relationship with clinical outcome. Methods-Patients with a proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion underwent noncontrast CT and whole-brain CT perfusion/dynamic CT angiography within 9 hours after stroke-onset. We defined poor outcome as a modified Rankin Scale score of ≥3. Association between the extent and velocity of CVF and poor outcome at 3 months was analyzed with Poisson-regression. Prognostic value of optimal CVF (maximum opacification of cortical veins) in addition to age, stroke severity, treatment, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score, cerebral blood flow, and collateral status was assessed with logistic regression and summarized with the area under the curve. Results-Eighty-eight patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years. By combining the extent and velocity of optimal CVF, we observed a decreased risk of poor outcome in patients with good and fast optimal CVF, risk ratio of 0.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.7). Extent and velocity of optimal CVF had additional prognostic value (area under the curve, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.98; 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUtrecht University Repository (Utrecht University)Same topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207