MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2912163064 · doi:10.1161/str.50.suppl_1.wp9

Abstract WP9: Improving Selection of Patients for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke:External Validation of a Clinical Decision Tool in Data from the Hermes Collaboration

2019· article· en· W2912163064 on OpenAlexaff
Esmée Venema, Maxim J.H.L. Mulder, Bob Roozenbeek, Scott Brown, Charles B.L.M. Majoie, Andrew M. Demchuk, Keith W. Muir, Antoni Dávalos, Peter Mitchell, Serge Bracard, Michael D. Hill, Phil White, Bruce Campbell, Françis Guillemin, Jeffrey L. Saver, Tudor G. Jovin, Mayank Goyal, Aad van der Lugt, Diederik W.J. Dippel, Hester F. Lingsma

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalLogistic regressionModified Rankin ScaleRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)StatisticClinical trialCalibrationStatisticsInternal medicineIschemic stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Benefit of endovascular treatment (EVT) varies between individual patients with acute ischemic stroke. The MR PREDICTS decision tool, previously developed in the MR CLEAN trial, predicts outcome with and without EVT based on baseline patient characteristics and imaging characteristics (www.mrpredicts.com). We externally validated this model with data from recent EVT trials. Methods: Individual patient data was derived from the six other randomized controlled trials within the HERMES collaboration (ESCAPE, REVASCAT, SWIFT-PRIME, EXTEND-IA, THRACE and PISTE). Outcome of the ordinal logistic regression model was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days after stroke. Treatment benefit was defined as the difference between the predicted probability of achieving functional independence (mRS score 0-2) with and without EVT. Model performance was evaluated according to discrimination (measured with the c-statistic which ranges from 0.5 to 1) and calibration. Model coefficients were updated after calibration. Results: We included 1243 patients (633 assigned to EVT, 610 assigned to control). The c-statistic was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.69) for the ordinal mRS and 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76) for functional independence, similar to previous performance. Outcomes were systematically better than predicted (calibration slope 0.89 and intercept 0.52). The observed probability of functional independence was higher than predicted for both treated patients (54% vs 40%) and controls (35% vs 26%), but the observed treatment benefit was similar (19% and 14%). Figure 1 shows a screenshot of the decision tool for use in clinical practice. Conclusion: Our model predicted outcome in a large representative trial population with discriminative value comparable to other well-known prediction tools. The decision tool can be used to support clinical decision making in ischemic stroke by selection of patients for EVT.

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)0.203
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.395
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2030.395
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→