MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010817231 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.111.646265

The iScore Predicts Effectiveness of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke

2012· article· en· W2010817231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gustavo Saposnik, Jiming Fang, Moira K. Kapral, Jack V. Tu, Muhammad Mamdani, Peter C. Austin, S. Claiborne Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)Propensity score matchingInternal medicineRelative riskAcute strokeCohortFibrinolytic agentTissue plasminogen activatorConfidence intervalMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tools to predict the clinical response after intravenous thrombolytic therapy (tPA) are scarce. The iScore is an existing validated tool to estimate outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of the iScore to predict clinical response and risk of hemorrhagic transformation after tPA. METHODS: We applied the iScore (www.sorcan.ca/iscore) to patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke at 11 stroke centers in Ontario, Canada, between 2003 and 2009 identified from the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. A cohort of patients with stroke treated at 154 centers in Ontario was used for external validation. We compared outcomes between patients receiving and not receiving tPA after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics using propensity-score matching. Patients were stratified into 3 a priori defined groups according to stroke severity using the iScore. RESULTS: Among 12 686 patients with an acute ischemic stroke, 1696 (13.4%) received intravenous thrombolysis. Higher iScores were associated with poor outcomes in both the tPA and non-tPA groups (P<0.001). Among those at low and medium risk based on their iScores, tPA use was associated with a benefit in the primary outcome (relative risk, 0.74 for those with low-risk iScores; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84; relative risk, 0.88 for those with medium risk iScores; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93). There was no difference in clinical outcomes between matched patients receiving and not receiving tPA in the highest iScore group (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01). Similar results were observed for disability at discharge and length of stay. The incident risk of neurological deterioration and hemorrhagic transformation (any or symptomatic) with tPA increased with the iScore risk. Results were similar in the validation cohort for risk of poor outcome with tPA by iScore level. CONCLUSIONS: The iScore may be used to predict clinical response and risk of hemorrhagic complications after tPA for an acute ischemic stroke. Patients with high iScores may not have a clinically meaningful benefit from intravenous tPA at the time of carrying a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations123
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207