MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095576720

DOI 10.1007/s00330-007-0696-9 NEURO

2007· article· en· W7095576720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombolysisModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)AngiographyMiddle cerebral arteryPerfusion scanningComputed tomography angiographyComputed tomography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perfusion CT in acute stroke: prediction of vessel recanalization and clinical outcome in intravenous thrombolytic therapy Abstract This study evaluated per-fusion computed tomography (PCT) for the prediction of vessel recanali-zation and clinical outcome in patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis. Thirty-nine patients with acute ische-mic stroke of the middle cerebral artery territory underwent intravenous thrombolysis within 3h of symptom onset. They all had non-enhanced CT (NECT), PCT, and CT angiography (CTA) before treatment. The Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (ASPECT) score was applied to NECT and PCT maps to assess the extent of ischemia. CTA was assessed for the site of vessel occlusion. The National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was used for initial clinical assess-ment. Three-month clinical outcome was assessed using the modified Rankin scale. Vessel recanalization was determined by follow-up ultra-sound. Of the PCT maps, a cerebral blood volume (CBV) ASPECT score of>6 versus ≤6 was the best predictor for clinical outcome (odds ratio, 31.43; 95 % confidence interval, 3.41–289.58; P<0.002), and was superior to NIHSS, NECT and CTA. No significant differences in ASPECT scores were found for the prediction of vessel recanalization. ASPECT score applied to PCT maps in acute stroke patients predicts the clinical outcome of intravenous thrombolysis and is superior to both early NECT and clinical parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207