Prediction of 60 day case-fatality after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: results from the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a devastating event with substantial case-fatality. Our purpose was to examine which clinical and neuro-imaging characteristics, available on admission, predict 60 day case-fatality in aSAH and to evaluate performance of our prediction model. We performed a secondary analysis of patients enrolled in the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT), a randomised multicentre trial to compare coiling with clipping in aSAH patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to develop a prognostic model to estimate the risk of dying within 60 days from aSAH based on clinical and neuro-imaging characteristics. The model was internally validated with bootstrapping techniques. The study population comprised of 2,128 patients who had been randomised to either endovascular coiling or neurosurgical clipping. In this population 153 patients (7.2%) died within 60 days. World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) grade was the most important predictor of case-fatality, followed by age, lumen size of the aneurysm and Fisher grade. The model discriminated reasonably between those who died within 60 days and those who survived (c statistic = 0.73), with minor optimism according to bootstrap re-sampling (optimism corrected c statistic = 0.70). Several strong predictors are available to predict 60 day case-fatality in aSAH patients who survived the early stage up till a treatment decision; after external validation these predictors could eventually be used in clinical decision making.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".