Evaluating the predictive capabilities of haematoma expansion scores in patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients presenting with acute intracerebral haemorrhage are at a high risk of exhibiting haematoma expansion, a phenomenon that can significantly worsen long-term functioning. Numerous clinical and radiological factors are associated with expansion. In a bid to better select patients at increased risk of expanding, these factors have been collated together into clinical scores. Several clinical scores have been developed, but comparisons of diagnostic potential between these scores are limited and the frequency of use in clinical trial enrolment is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review of haematoma expansion scores and explore numerous factors such as the methodology of development and diagnostic capabilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched with assistance from an experienced information specialist. Eligible studies will involve adults presenting with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage who received baseline assessments, follow-up imaging and risk stratification through a haematoma expansion score. Reviewers will independently extract data from the included studies and will collect data on patient demographics and medical history, details on score development, diagnostic capabilities and usage proportions. Analysis of extracted data will focus on comparing the predictive capability of each score and similarities/differences in score development. The exact analysis technique will be dictated on the type of data extracted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".