MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187555794 · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00303-8

Clinical course of untreated cerebral cavernous malformations: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

2015· review· en· W2187555794 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Horne, Kelly D. Flemming, I‐Chang Su, Christian Stapf, Jin Pyeong Jeon, Da Li, Susanne Maxwell, Phil White, Teresa J. Christianson, Ronit Agid, Won‐Sang Cho, Chang Wan Oh, Zhen Wu, Junting Zhang, Jeong Eun Kim, Karel ter Brugge, Robert A. Willinsky, Robert D. Brown, Gordon Murray, Rustam Al‐Shahi Salman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Neurology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilScottish Government
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioMeta-analysisProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalStudy heterogeneityPresentation (obstetrics)MEDLINEPediatricsSurvival analysisInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs) can cause symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), but the estimated risks are imprecise and predictors remain uncertain. We aimed to obtain precise estimates and predictors of the risk of ICH during untreated follow-up in an individual patient data meta-analysis. METHODS: We invited investigators of published cohorts of people aged at least 16 years, identified by a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from inception to April 30, 2015, to provide individual patient data on clinical course from CCM diagnosis until first CCM treatment or last available follow-up. We used survival analysis to estimate the 5-year risk of symptomatic ICH due to CCMs (primary outcome), multivariable Cox regression to identify baseline predictors of outcome, and random-effects models to pool estimates in a meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Among 1620 people in seven cohorts from six studies, 204 experienced ICH during 5197 person-years of follow-up (Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year risk 15·8%, 95% CI 13·7-17·9). The primary outcome of ICH within 5 years of CCM diagnosis was associated with clinical presentation with ICH or new focal neurological deficit (FND) without brain imaging evidence of recent haemorrhage versus other modes of presentation (hazard ratio 5·6, 95% CI 3·2-9·7) and with brainstem CCM location versus other locations (4·4, 2·3-8·6), but age, sex, and CCM multiplicity did not add independent prognostic information. The 5-year estimated risk of ICH during untreated follow-up was 3·8% (95% CI 2·1-5·5) for 718 people with non-brainstem CCM presenting without ICH or FND, 8·0% (0·1-15·9) for 80 people with brainstem CCM presenting without ICH or FND, 18·4% (13·3-23·5) for 327 people with non-brainstem CCM presenting with ICH or FND, and 30·8% (26·3-35·2) for 495 people with brainstem CCM presenting with ICH or FND. INTERPRETATION: Mode of clinical presentation and CCM location are independently associated with ICH within 5 years of CCM diagnosis. These findings can inform decisions about CCM treatment. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government, and UK Stroke Association.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.055
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.497
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.023 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations349
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet NeurologySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207