Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Comparative illustration of the distribution of ASPECTS from consensus reads of 2 neuroradiologists, software-based automated ASPECTS, and CTP-CBV for all patients in our study population (each marker represents a patient’s score). Automated ASPECTS showed excellent agreement (κ = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62–1.0) with both consensus and CTP-CBV ASPECTS. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76–0.90) across all 3 groups.
- Fig 2.
An 82-year-old woman who presented with right MCA M1 occlusion and an NIHSS score of 18. She underwent successful mechanical thrombectomy (TICI 3) with a CT-to-recanalization time of 50 minutes. Axial NCCT (A), automated ASPECTS (B), axial CTP-CBV (C), and axial NCCT 48 hours after endovascular treatment (D) are shown. For the 2 human readers, one scored 6 and the other, 7 (consensus ASPECTS, 6). B, Automated software assigned an ASPECTS of 6. CTP-CBV ASPECTS was 7. There is good topographic correlation with the final infarction volume.
- Fig 3.
Scatterplots for correlation between ASPECTS and final infarction volume for all 3 ASPECTS groups showing significant (P < .001) negative correlation (r = −0.52 for the consensus reads, −0.58 for CTP-CBV, and −0.66 for automated ASPECTS).
Tables
- Table 1:
Comparative analysis among ASPECTS scores categorized on the basis of time of symptom onseta
Onset Symptoms ≤6 hrs (24) Onset Symptoms >6 hrs (34) P Value Consensus ASPECTS (2 neuroradiologists) 8 (6–9) 7 (7–9) .46 Automated ASPECTS 9 (7–10) 9 (8–9) .64 CTP-CBV ASPECTS 8 (6–9) 8 (7–9) .73 ↵a Data are presented in median (IQR).
- Table 2:
Clinical and imaging data in patients with good-versus-poor functional outcome using mRS >2 as a cutoff
Variable Overall (n = 50) Good Outcome (n = 22) Poor Outcome (n = 28) P Value Age (mean) (SD) (yr) 70.0 (13.0) 65.1 (12.8) 73.8 (12.1) .02 Sex (M/F) 23:27 13:9 10:18 .10 Baseline NIHSS (median) (IQR) 15 (11–21) 11 (8–14) 20 (14–22) .001 Time from symptom onset (mean) (SD) (hr) 8.4 (5.6) 8.8 (6.7) 8.1 (4.6) .62 Consensus ASPECTS ≥ 6 (No.) (%) 43 21 (95%) 22 (78%) .10 Automated ASPECTS ≥ 6 (No.) (%) 45 21 (95%) 24 (85%) .26 CTP-CBV ASPECTS ≥ 6 (No.) (%) 43 21 (95%) 22 (78%) .10 Final infarction volume (mean) (SD) (mL) 49 24.4 (29.0) 57.5 (64.7) .03
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Automated assessment of ischemic core on non-contrast computed tomography: a multicenter comparative analysis with CT perfusion
- Real-world evaluation of Brainomix e-Stroke software
- MR microscopy to assess clot composition following mechanical thrombectomy predicts recanalization and clinical outcome
- Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score and collateral status predict target mismatch in large vessel occlusion with delayed time windows
- Performance of Automated ASPECTS Software and Value as a Computer-Aided Detection Tool
- Benefit and risk of intravenous alteplase in patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke and low ASPECTS
- Emerging Artificial Intelligence Imaging Applications for Stroke Interventions
- Innovative use of artificial intelligence and digital communication in acute stroke pathway in response to COVID-19
- ASPECTS Distorts Infarct Volume Measurement