MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3157492870 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.663899

Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients: A Comparative Study

2021· article· en· W3157492870 on OpenAlexafffund
Deepthi Rajashekar, Michael D. Hill, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mayank Goyal, Jens Fiehler, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Research ChairsHotchkiss Brain InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialStroke (engine)RegressionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroimagingRegression analysisArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPhysical therapyComputer scienceInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinical stroke rehabilitation decision making relies on multi-modal data, including imaging and other clinical assessments. However, most previously described methods for predicting long-term stroke outcomes do not make use of the full multi-modal data available. The aim of this work was to develop and evaluate the benefit of nested regression models that utilise clinical assessments as well as image-based biomarkers to model 30-day NIHSS. Method: 221 subjects were pooled from two prospective trials with follow-up MRI or CT scans, and NIHSS assessed at baseline, as well as 48-hours and 30 days after symptom onset. Three prediction models for 30-day NIHSS were developed using a support vector regression model: one clinical model based on modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors (MCLINICAL) and two nested regression models that aggregate clinical and image-based features that differed with respect to the method used for selection of important brain regions for the modelling task. The first model used the widely accepted RreliefF (MRELIEF) machine learning method for this purpose, while the second model employed a lesion-symptom mapping technique (MLSM) often used in neuroscience to investigate structure-function relationships and identify eloquent regions in the brain. Results: The two nested models achieved a similar performance while considerably outperforming the clinical model. However, MRELIEF required fewer brain regions and achieved a lower mean absolute error than MLSM while being less computationally expensive. Conclusion: Aggregating clinical and imaging information leads to considerably better outcome prediction models. While lesion-symptom mapping is a useful tool to investigate structure-function relationships of the brain, it does not lead to better outcome predictions compared to a simple data-driven feature selection approach, which is less computationally expensive and easier to implement.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Neurology→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→