IScore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A predictive model of stroke mortality may be useful for clinicians to improve communication with and care of hospitalized patients. Our aim was to identify predictors of mortality and to develop and validate a risk score model using information available at hospital presentation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective study included 12 262 community-based patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke at multiple hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 2003 and 2008 who had been identified from the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network (8223 patients in the derivation cohort, 4039 in the internal validation cohort) and the Ontario Stroke Audit (3720 for the external validation cohort). The mortality rates for the derivation and internal validation cohorts were 12.2% and 12.6%, respectively, at 30 days and 22.5% and 22.9% at 1 year. Multivariable predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality included older age, male sex, severe stroke, nonlacunar stroke subtype, glucose ≥7.5 mmol/L (135 mg/dL), history of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, cancer, dementia, kidney disease on dialysis, and dependency before the stroke. A risk score index stratified the risk of death and identified low- and high- risk individuals. The c statistic was 0.850 for 30-day mortality and 0.823 for 1-year mortality for the derivation cohort, 0.851 for the 30-day model and 0.840 for the 1-year mortality model in the internal validation set, and 0.790 for the 30-day model and 0.782 for the 1-year model in the external validation set. CONCLUSION: Among patients with ischemic stroke, factors identifiable within hours of hospital presentation predicted mortality risk at 30 days and 1 year. The predictive score may assist clinicians in estimating stroke mortality risk and policymakers in providing a quantitative tool to compare facilities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.646 | 0.534 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".