MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990363514 · doi:10.1159/000071129

Reliability and Validity of the Canadian Neurological Scale in Retrospective Assessment of Initial Stroke Severity

2003· article· en· W1990363514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Knut Stavem, Morten I. Lossius, Ole Morten Rønning

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyInter-rater reliabilityMedicineStroke (engine)Medical recordKappaPredictive validityReliability (semiconductor)Cohen's kappaMultivariate analysisPhysical therapyRating scaleInternal medicineClinical psychologyPsychologyStatisticsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stroke severity is an important determinant of outcome, however, quantitative data on the initial neurological status might be lacking in retrospective studies. We wanted to assess the reliability and validity of the retrospective use of the Canadian Neurological Scale (CNS). METHODS: In 181 patients with validated stroke, two raters scored the CNS based on medical record review. We assessed interrater reliability and construct validity of the CNS. Predictive validity was assessed by the ability of the CNS to predict 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was high (kappa or weighted kappa 0.76-0.96). Correlations between similar items of prospective Scandinavian Stroke Scale scores and retrospective CNS scores ranged from 0.54 to 0.85. CNS total score was a strong predictor of death within 30 days and 1 year in multivariate models. CONCLUSIONS: The retrospective algorithm for the CNS had a high to substantial interrater reliability and predictive validity. Accordingly, in retrospective stroke studies using medical record information, the CNS can be a feasible instrument to adjust for differences in stroke severity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207