ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Longitudinal assessment of automated gray-white matter ratio for outcome prediction after cardiac arrest.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain edema progression rate on serial CT predicts neurological outcome after cardiac arrest: a region-specific biomarker of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Gray-white matter ratio in pediatric and adult cardiopulmonary arrest studies: a rapid review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
- Early Prediction of Neurological Outcome After Cardiac Arrest-Rationale and Design of the Prospective International Observational EARLY-NEURO, a STEPCARE Substudy.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe gray-white matter ratio (GWR) on head CT is a well-established marker of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury after cardiac arrest, but its prognostic performance may vary with the timing of imaging. We aimed (i) to evaluate the prognostic value of GWR across serial CT scans within the same comatose patients, and (ii) to determine whether the longitudinal changes of GWR provide additional prognostic information beyond single time-point measurements.
methodsWe prospectively recruited 123 comatose patients with cardiac arrest admitted to three intensive care units. All patients underwent serial non-contrast head CT at three predefined time windows (< 24 h, 24-96 h, and 96-168 h after cardiac arrest). GWR values were automatically calculated using an atlas-based approach. Neurological outcome at 3 months was assessed with the Cerebral Performance Category score (CPC) and dichotomized into good (CPC 1-2) or poor (CPC 3-5). GWR values and their progression were compared between outcome groups. Prognostic accuracy of GWR at each time window was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsGWR was consistently lower in patients with poor outcomes compared to those with good outcomes across all time windows (for all p < 0.001). In poor-outcome patients, GWR declined after the first 24 h, whereas it was stable in good-outcome patients. The prognostic performance of GWR improved with later imaging, with an AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) at < 24 h, 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.86) at 24-96 h, and 0.81 (95% CI 0.72-0.88) at 96-168 h after cardiac arrest. Incorporating longitudinal changes in GWR slightly improved prediction, with the AUC increasing from 0.81 to 0.83 at 96-168 h.
conclusionsAutomated GWR is a useful predictor of outcome after cardiac arrest, with higher accuracy on delayed CT (> 24 h). The different GWR progression trajectories between patients with poor and good outcomes suggest that longitudinal CT assessments may provide additional prognostic information.
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.