ArticleJournal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
Defining Large Core Infarction: Comparing the Accuracy of Non-Contrast CT ASPECTS Versus CT Perfusion Core Volume.
Article in Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeWe evaluated agreement and performance of non-contrast head-computerized tomography (NCHCT) and CT-perfusion (CTP) in identifying large core infarct in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT), using MRI as reference.
methodsFrom our prospective multicenter registry, we identified patients with LVO-AIS due to internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery M1occlusions who underwent EVT between 2017 and 2024. Final infarct volume (FIV) was defined using 24-48 h post-EVT diffusion-weighted imaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-FIV). To limit infarct growth bias, only patients with CTP-to-EVT start time <3 h were included. Large core infarct was defined at FIV thresholds: 50, 70, and 100 mL. The primary outcome was agreement between NCHCT and CTP in identifying large core infarct using kappa-statistics. Large core was considered if NCHCT-ASPECTS<6 or rCBF<30% volume>70 mL on CTP (RAPID/Viz.AI). Secondary outcomes included classification accuracy of each modality relative to MRI-FIV using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Sensitivity analyses were performed in subgroups with TICI 2c-3 and cases processed by RAPID.
resultsAmong 241 EVT-treated LVO-AIS patients, median NIHSS was 15 [IQR: 10-20], MRI-FIV 13.8 Ml [IQR: 5-41.0], ASPECTS 8 [IQR: 7-10], and CTP-predicted core 8 mL [IQR: 0-31.0]. CTP and NCHCT showed slight agreement in identifying large core (κ = 0.192) and weak-to-acceptable discrimination for identifying large core infarcts (AUC-ROC: 0.61-0.72 across MRI-FIV thresholds). Both modalities showed limited predictive ability for 90-day functional independence (AUC-ROC: 0.63-0.65). Similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsAmong LVO-AIS EVT-treated patients, NCHCT and CTP demonstrated slight agreement in classifying small versus large core, and neither technique was effective at predicting FIV or clinical outcomes.
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.