ArticlePloS one2024
Automated detection of early signs of irreversible ischemic change on CTA source images in patients with large vessel occlusion.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo create and validate an automated pipeline for detection of early signs of irreversible ischemic change from admission CTA in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke.
methodsWe retrospectively included 368 patients for training and 143 for external validation. All patients had anterior circulation LVO stroke, endovascular therapy with successful reperfusion, and follow-up diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). We devised a pipeline to automatically segment Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) regions and extracted their relative Hounsfield unit (rHU) values. We determined the optimal rHU cut points for prediction of final infarction in each ASPECT region, performed 10-fold cross-validation in the training set, and measured the performance via external validation in patients from another institute. We compared the model with an expert neuroradiologist for prediction of final infarct volume and poor functional outcome.
resultsWe achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.69±0.13, 0.69±0.09, 0.61±0.23, and 0.72±0.11 across all regions and folds in cross-validation. In the external validation cohort, we achieved a median [interquartile] AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.71 [0.68-0.72], 0.70 [0.68-0.73], 0.55 [0.50-0.63], and 0.74 [0.73-0.77], respectively. The rHU-based ASPECTS showed significant correlation with DWI-based ASPECTS (rS = 0.39, p<0.001) and final infarct volume (rS = -0.36, p<0.001). The AUC for predicting poor functional outcome was 0.66 (95%CI: 0.57-0.75). The predictive capabilities of rHU-based ASPECTS were not significantly different from the neuroradiologist's visual ASPECTS for either final infarct volume or functional outcome.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility of an automated pipeline and predictive model based on relative HU attenuation of ASPECTS regions on baseline CTA and its non-inferior performance in predicting final infarction on post-stroke DWI compared to an expert human reader.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.