Simple prediction scores predict good and devastating outcomes after stroke more accurately than physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: physicians are often asked to prognosticate soon after a patient presents with stroke. This study aimed to compare two outcome prediction scores (Five Simple Variables [FSV] score and the PLAN [Preadmission comorbidities, Level of consciousness, Age, and focal Neurologic deficit]) with informal prediction by physicians. Methods: demographic and clinical variables were prospectively collected from consecutive patients hospitalised with acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke (2012-13). In-person or telephone follow-up at 6 months established vital and functional status (modified Rankin score [mRS]). Area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) was used to establish prediction score performance. Results: five hundred and seventy-five patients were included; 46% female, median age 76 years, 88% ischaemic stroke. Six months after stroke, 47% of patients had a good outcome (alive and independent, mRS 0-2) and 26% a devastating outcome (dead or severely dependent, mRS 5-6). The FSV and PLAN scores were superior to physician prediction (AUCs of 0.823-0.863 versus 0.773-0.805, P < 0.0001) for good and devastating outcomes. The FSV score was superior to the PLAN score for predicting good outcomes and vice versa for devastating outcomes (P < 0.001). Outcome prediction was more accurate for those with later presentations (>24 hours from onset). Conclusion: the FSV and PLAN scores are validated in this population for outcome prediction after both ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke. The FSV score is the least complex of all developed scores and can assist outcome prediction by physicians.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".