MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786238001 · doi:10.1136/bmj.j5745

Development and validation of outcome prediction models for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: the SAHIT multinational cohort study

2018· article· en· W2786238001 on OpenAlexafffund
Blessing N. R. Jaja, Gustavo Saposnik, Hester F. Lingsma, Erin M. Macdonald, Kevin E. Thorpe, M. Mamdani, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Andrew Molyneux, Airton Leonardo de Oliveira Manoel, Bawarjan Schatlo, Daniel Hänggi, David Hasan, George Kwok Chu Wong, Nima Etminan, Hitoshi Fukuda, James Torner, Karl Schaller, José I. Suárez, Martin N. Stienen, Mervyn D. I. Vergouwen, Gabriël J.E. Rinkel, Julian Spears, Michael D. Cusimano, Michael M. Todd, Peter Le Roux, Peter J. Kirkpatrick, John D. Pickard, Walter M. van den Bergh, Gordon Murray, S. Claiborne Johnston, Sen Yamagata, Stephan A. Mayer, Tom A. Schweizer, R. Loch Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKing's College LondonUniversitätsspital ZürichMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of TorontoInselspital, Universitätsspital BernMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalObservational studyGlasgow Outcome ScaleCohortSubarachnoid hemorrhageLogistic regressionClinical trialReceiver operating characteristicProspective cohort studyNeuroimagingCohort studyInternal medicineGlasgow Coma ScaleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a set of practical prediction tools that reliably estimate the outcome of subarachnoid haemorrhage from ruptured intracranial aneurysms (SAH). DESIGN: Cohort study with logistic regression analysis to combine predictors and treatment modality. SETTING: Subarachnoid Haemorrhage International Trialists' (SAHIT) data repository, including randomised clinical trials, prospective observational studies, and hospital registries. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers collaborated to pool datasets of prospective observational studies, hospital registries, and randomised clinical trials of SAH from multiple geographical regions to develop and validate clinical prediction models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Predicted risk of mortality or functional outcome at three months according to score on the Glasgow outcome scale. RESULTS: Clinical prediction models were developed with individual patient data from 10 936 patients and validated with data from 3355 patients after development of the model. In the validation cohort, a core model including patient age, premorbid hypertension, and neurological grade on admission to predict risk of functional outcome had good discrimination, with an area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.82). When the core model was extended to a "neuroimaging model," with inclusion of clot volume, aneurysm size, and location, the AUC improved to 0.81 (0.79 to 0.84). A full model that extended the neuroimaging model by including treatment modality had AUC of 0.81 (0.79 to 0.83). Discrimination was lower for a similar set of models to predict risk of mortality (AUC for full model 0.76, 0.69 to 0.82). All models showed satisfactory calibration in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: The prediction models reliably estimate the outcome of patients who were managed in various settings for ruptured intracranial aneurysms that caused subarachnoid haemorrhage. The predictor items are readily derived at hospital admission. The web based SAHIT prognostic calculator (http://sahitscore.com) and the related app could be adjunctive tools to support management of patients.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations282
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207