MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099333556

Perfusion in Early Stroke Visualization and Assessment R.I. Aviv

2015· article· en· W7099333556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)Modified Rankin ScaleMiddle cerebral arteryPerfusionPerfusion scanningReceiver operating characteristicAcute strokeInfarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Qualitative CT perfusion (CTP) assessment by using the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) allows rapid calculation of infarct extent for middle cerebral artery infarcts. Published thresholds exist for noncontrast CT (NCCT) ASPECTS, which may distinguish outcome/complication risk, but early ischemic signs are difficult to detect. We hypothesized that different ASPECTS thresholds exist for CTP parameters versus NCCT and that these may be superior at predicting clinical and radiologic outcome in the acute setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six baseline acute stroke NCCT and CTP studies within 3 hours of symptoms were blindly reviewed by 3 neuroradiologists, and ASPECTS were assigned. Treatment response was defined as major neurologic improvement when a8-point National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale improvement at 24 hours occurred. Follow-up NCCT ASPECTS and 90-day modified Rankin score (mRS) were radiologic and clinical reference standards. Receiver operating characteristic curves derived optimal thresholds for outcome. RESULTS: Cerebral blood volume and NCCT ASPECTS had similar radiologic correlations (0.6 and 0.5, respectively) and best predicted infarct size in the absence of major neurologic improvement. A NCCT ASPECT threshold of 7 and a cerebral blood volume threshold of 8 discriminated patients with poor

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207