MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896468346 · doi:10.1177/1747493018806167

Glial fibrillary acidic protein for the early diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

2018· review· en· W2896468346 on OpenAlexaff
Luke A. Perry, Tom Lucarelli, Jahan C. Penny‐Dimri, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Stefania Mondello, Alejandro Bustamante, Joan Montaner, Christian Foerch, Patrick Kwan, Stephen M. Davis, Bernard Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracerebral hemorrhageGlial fibrillary acidic proteinReceiver operating characteristicMeta-analysisDiagnostic accuracyStroke (engine)Internal medicineBiomarkerDiagnostic biomarkerSubgroup analysisPathologySubarachnoid hemorrhageImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has shown promise in several studies for its ability to diagnose intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of blood GFAP level to differentiate (ICH) from acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and stroke mimics, both overall, and in the first three hours after symptom onset. Methods We searched multiple databases, without language restriction, from inception until December 2017. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) modeling was used to meta-analyze results. We conducted subgroup analyses restricted to blood samples collected within 0–60, 60–120, and 120–180 min time groups after symptom onset, to evaluate diagnostic accuracy in the early pre-hospital phase. Between and within study heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression. Results The search identified 199 potentially relevant citations from which 11 studies involving 1297 participants (350 ICH, 947 AIS, or mimic) were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the HSROC curve were 0.756 (95% CI 0.630–0.849), 0.945 (95% CI 0.858–0.980), and 0.904 (95% CI 0.878–0.931), respectively. Differences in assays used, but not the other covariates, partially explained between-study heterogeneity ( p = 0.034). The summary estimates for the 0–60, 60–120, and 120–180 min subgroups were comparable to the primary analysis and there was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between subgroups. Conclusions GFAP is a promising diagnostic biomarker for ICH diagnosis in the early pre-hospital phase. Test accuracy is affected by assay subtype, but there are still unexplained sources of heterogeneity. High quality, international multi-center trials are warranted to develop and validate a point-of-care GFAP assay for the rapid triage and evaluation of acute stroke in the pre-hospital setting.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations61
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207