MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611959715 · doi:10.1136/bmj.j1710

Selection of patients for intra-arterial treatment for acute ischaemic stroke: development and validation of a clinical decision tool in two randomised trials

2017· article· en· W2611959715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esmée Venema, Maxim J.H.L. Mulder, Bob Roozenbeek, Joseph P. Broderick, Sharon D. Yeatts, Pooja Khatri, Olvert A. Berkhemer, Bart J. Emmer, Yvo B.W.E.M. Roos, Charles B.L.M. Majoie, Robert J. van Oostenbrugge, Wim H. van Zwam, Aad van der Lugt, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Diederik W.J. Dippel, Hester F. Lingsma

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortLogistic regressionClinical trialConfidence intervalModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Ischaemic strokePhysical therapyCohort studyInternal medicineIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To improve the selection of patients with acute ischaemic stroke for intra-arterial treatment using a clinical decision tool to predict individual treatment benefit. Design Multivariable regression modelling with data from two randomised controlled clinical trials. Setting 16 hospitals in the Netherlands (derivation cohort) and 58 hospitals in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe (validation cohort). Participants 500 patients from the Multicenter Randomised Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in the Netherlands trial (derivation cohort) and 260 patients with intracranial occlusion from the Interventional Management of Stroke III trial (validation cohort). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days after stroke. We constructed an ordinal logistic regression model to predict outcome and treatment benefit, defined as the difference between the predicted probability of good functional outcome (mRS score 0-2) with and without intra-arterial treatment. Results 11 baseline clinical and radiological characteristics were included in the model. The externally validated C statistic was 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.73) for the ordinal model and 0.73 (0.67 to 0.79) for the prediction of good functional outcome, indicating moderate discriminative ability. The mean predicted treatment benefit varied between patients in the combined derivation and validation cohort from −2.3% to 24.3%. There was benefit of intra-arterial treatment predicted for some individual patients from groups in which no treatment effect was found in previous subgroup analyses, such as those with no or poor collaterals. Conclusion The proposed clinical decision tool combines multiple baseline clinical and radiological characteristics and shows large variations in treatment benefit between patients. The tool is clinically useful as it aids in distinguishing between individual patients who may experience benefit from intra-arterial treatment for acute ischaemic stroke and those who will not. Trial registration clinicaltrials.govNCT00359424 (IMS III) and isrctn.com ISRCTN10888758 (MR CLEAN).

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)0.333
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.571
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3330.571
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

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

Citations125
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207