MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3182470398 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.032364

Comparing the Prognostic Impact of Age and Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale in Acute Stroke due to Large Vessel Occlusion

2021· article· en· W3182470398 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna M. Ospel, Scott Brown, Manon Kappelhof, Wim H. van Zwam, Tudor G. Jovin, Daniel Roy, Bruce Campbell, Peter Mitchell, Yvo B.W.E.M. Roos, Françis Guillemin, Brian Buck, Keith W. Muir, Serge Bracard, Phil White, Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont, Mayank Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Logistic regressionConfidence intervalInternal medicineCardiologyIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Little is known about the combined effect of age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) in endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion, and it is not clear how the effects of baseline age and NIHSS on outcome compare to each other. The previously described Stroke Prognostication Using Age and NIHSS (SPAN) index adds up NIHSS and age to a 1:1 combined prognostic index. We added a weighting factor to the NIHSS/age SPAN index to compare the relative prognostic impact of NIHSS and age and assessed EVT effect based on weighted age and NIHSS. Methods: We performed adjusted logistic regression with good outcome (90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) as primary outcome. From this model, the coefficients for NIHSS and age were obtained. The ratio between the NIHSS and age coefficients was calculated to determine a weighted SPAN index. We obtained adjusted effect size estimates for EVT in patient subgroups defined by weighted SPAN increments of 3, to evaluate potential changes in treatment effect. Results: We included 1750/1766 patients from the HERMES collaboration (Highly Effective Reperfusion Using Multiple Endovascular Devices) with available age and NIHSS data. Median NIHSS was 17 (interquartile range, 13–21), and median age was 68 (interquartile range, 57–76). Good outcome was achieved by 682/1743 (39%) patients. The NIHSS/age effect coefficient ratio was ([−0.0032]/[−0.111])=3.4, which was rounded to 3, resulting in a weighted SPAN index defined as ([3×NIHSS]+age). Cumulative EVT effect size estimates across weighted SPAN subgroups consistently favored EVT, with a number needed to treat ranging from 5.3 to 8.7. Conclusions: The impact on chance of good outcome of a 1-point increase in NIHSS roughly corresponded to a 3-year increase in patient age. EVT was beneficial across all weighted age/NIHSS subgroups.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.316
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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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