Development and Validation of a Prognostic Tool for Direct Enteral Tube Insertion After Acute Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose— We aimed to create a novel prognostic risk score to estimate outcomes after direct enteral tube placement in acute stroke. Methods— We used the Ontario Stroke Registry and linked databases to obtain clinical information on all patients with direct enteral tube insertion after ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2010 (derivation cohort) and July 1, 2010 to March 31, 2013 (validation cohort). We used multivariable regression to assign scores to predictor variables for 3 outcomes after tube placement: favorable outcome (discharge modified Rankin Scale score 0–3 and alive at 90 days), poor outcome (discharge modified Rankin Scale score 5 or death at 90 days), and 30-day mortality. Results— Variables associated with a favorable outcome were younger age, preadmission independence, ischemic stroke rather than intracerebral hemorrhage, lower stroke severity, and a shorter time between stroke and tube placement. Variables associated with a poor outcome were older age, preadmission dependence, atrial fibrillation, greater stroke severity, and tracheostomy. Age, preadmission dependence, atrial fibrillation, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and shorter time to tube placement were associated with increased 30-day mortality. Using these variables, we created an online calculator to facilitate estimation of individual patient risk of favorable and poor outcomes. C -statistic in the validation cohort was 0.82 for favorable outcome, 0.65 for poor outcome, and 0.62 for 30-day mortality, and calibration was adequate. Conclusions— We developed risk scores to estimate outcomes after direct enteral tube insertion for acute dysphagic stroke. This information may be useful in discussions with patients and families when there is prognostic uncertainty surrounding outcomes with direct enteral tube placement after stroke.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".