Abstract TMP4: Higher Pretreatment Computed Tomography Angiography Source Image (CTA-SI) ASPECTS Score Predicts Better Outcome After Intra-arterial Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Intra-arterial (IA) therapies are becoming prevalent in acute stroke management. Despite greater success rates of recanalization and newer IA therapies, outcomes have shown mixed improvements. Patient selection remains a key element in targeting those who are more likely to benefit from therapy. The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) is a 10-point quantitative topographic computed tomography (CT) scan score that has been used to estimate the size of cerebral infarction. The relationship between CTA-SI ASPECTS on IA therapy outcomes in acute stroke patients has not been reported. Hypothesis: Higher CTA-SI ASPECTS scoring in IA therapy patients will yield favorable 30-day outcomes. Methods: All patients with acute stroke who underwent CT, CTA and IA therapy between July 2006 and June 2012 were included in this study. Demographic, radiological and clinical data including admission NIHSS and 30 day modified rankin score (mRS) was collected. 30-day data was pooled into an mRS of 1-3 marking favorable outcome and 4-6 marking unfavorable outcome. CTA-SI ASPECT scores were binned into one of three scoring groups: 8-10, 5-7 and 1-4. Data were analyzed by t-test and chi-square. Results: Eighty one (41 females, mean age 69.1 +/- 15 years) patients underwent CT, CTA and IA therapy and had a 30-day mRS assessment. Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on admission was 15.6 (+/- 6.7). 10 patients had a CTA-SI ASPECT score of 1-4, 32 had a score of 5-7 and 39 had a score of 8-10. All 10 with a CTA-SI ASPECT score of 1-4 had an unfavorable outcome after IA therapy. 3 patients (9.38%) with a score of 5-7 and 13 patients (33.33%) with a score of 8-10 had a favorable outcome after IA therapy. Patients with higher CTA-SI scores were more likely to have a better outcome at 30 days after IA therapy (LR 10.95, p< .004). Conclusions: This study suggests that patients with higher CTA-SI ASPECT scores have more favorable outcomes after IA therapy. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical benefit of using CTA-SI ASPECTS as a selection tool for IA therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".