MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751672136 · doi:10.1177/2396987317728854

The effect of different combinations of vascular, dependency and cognitive endpoints on the sample size required to detect a treatment effect in trials of treatments to improve outcome after lacunar and non-lacunar ischaemic stroke

2017· article· en· W2751672136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Makin, Fergus Doubal, Terence J. Quinn, Philip M. Bath, Martin Dennis, Joanna M. Wardlaw

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondation LeducqMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsLacunar strokeMedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineDementiaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionVascular dementiaSample size determinationCardiologyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyVascular diseaseIschemic strokeIschemiaDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Endpoints that are commonly used in trials of moderate/severe stroke may be less frequent in patients with minor, non-disabling stroke thus inflating sample sizes. We tested whether trial efficiency might be improved with composite endpoints. Methods We prospectively recruited patients with lacunar and minor non-lacunar ischaemic stroke (NIHSS ≤ 7) and assessed recurrent vascular events (stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), ischemic heart disease (IHD)), modified Rankin Score (mRS) and cognitive testing with the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (ACE-R) one year post-stroke. For a potential secondary prevention randomised controlled trial (RCT), we estimated sample sizes using individual or combined outcomes, at power 80% (and 90%), alpha 5%, required to detect a relative 10% risk reduction. Results Amongst 264 patients (118 lacunar, 146 non-lacunar), at one year, 30/264 (11%) patients had a recurrent vascular event, 5 (2%) had died, 3 (1%) had clinically-diagnosed dementia, 53/264 (20%) had mRS ≥ 3 and 29/158 (19%) had ACE-R ≤ 82 (57 could not attend for cognitive testing). For a potential trial, at 80% power, using mRS ≥ 3 alone would require n > 5000 participants, recurrent vascular events alone n = 9908 participants, and a composite of any recurrent vascular event, ACE-R ≤ 82, dementia or mRS ≥ 2 (present in 56% of patients) n = 2224 patients. However, including cognition increased missing data. Results were similar for lacunar and non-lacunar minor ischaemic stroke. Conclusions Composite outcomes including vascular events, dependency, and cognition reduce sample size and increase efficiency, feasibility, and relevance to patients of RCTs in minor ischaemic stroke. Efficiency might be improved further with more practical cognitive test strategies.

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)0.406
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.507
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4060.507
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.013
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0100.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Stroke JournalSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207