Nomogram to Predict Cognitive Dysfunction After a Minor Ischemic Stroke in Hospitalized-Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An easily scoring system to predict the risk of cognitive impairment after minor ischemic stroke has not been available. We aimed to develop and externally validate a nomogram for predicting the probability of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) among hospitalized population with minor stroke. Moreover, the association of Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) with PSCI is also investigated. We prospectively conducted a developed cohort on collected data in stroke center from June 2017 to February 2018, as well as an external validation cohort between June 2018 and February 2019. The main outcome is cognitive impairment defined as <22 Montreal Cognition Assessment (MoCA) score points 6 – 12 months following a minor stroke onset. Based on multivariate logistic models, the nomogram model was generated. Plasma TMAO levels were assessed at admission using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. A total of 228 participants completed the follow-up data for generating the nomogram. After multivariate logistic regression, seven variables remained independent predictors of PSCI to compose the nomogram included age, female, Fazekas score, educational level, number of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS), HbA1c, and cortical infarction. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve of model was 0.829, C index was good (0.810), and the AUC-ROC of the model applied in validation cohort was 0.812. Plasma TMAO levels were higher in patients with cognitive impairment than in them without cognitive dysfunction (median 4.56 vs. 3.22 μmol/L; p ≤ 0.001). In conclusion, this scoring system is the first nomogram developed and validated in a stroke center cohort for individualized prediction of cognitive impairment after minor stroke. Higher plasma TMAO level at admission suggests a potential marker of PSCI.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".