Validation of Risk Scores for Predicting Atrial Fibrillation Detected After Stroke Based on an Electronic Medical Record Algorithm: A Registry-Claims-Electronic Medical Record Linked Data Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Poststroke atrial fibrillation (AF) screening aids decisions regarding the optimal secondary prevention strategies in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We used an electronic medical record (EMR) algorithm to identify AF in a cohort of AIS patients, which were used to validate eight risk scores for predicting AF detected after stroke (AFDAS). Methods We used linked data between a hospital stroke registry and a deidentified database including EMRs and administrative claims data. EMR algorithms were constructed to identify AF using diagnostic and medication codes as well as free clinical text. Based on the optimal EMR algorithm, the incidence rate of AFDAS was estimated. The predictive performance of 8 risk scores including AS5F, C2HEST, CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, CHASE-LESS, HATCH, HAVOC, and Re-CHARGE-AF scores, were compared using the C-index, net reclassification improvement, integrated discrimination improvement, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis. Results The algorithm that defines AF as any positive mention of AF-related keywords in electrocardiography or echocardiography reports, or presence of diagnostic codes of AF was used to identify AF. Among the 5,412 AIS patients without known AF at stroke admission, the incidence rate of AFDAS was 84.5 per 1,000 person-year. The CHASE-LESS and AS5F scores were well calibrated and showed comparable C-indices (0.741 versus 0.730, p = 0.223), which were significantly higher than the other risk scores. Conclusion The CHASE-LESS and AS5F scores demonstrated adequate discrimination and calibration for predicting AFDAS. Both simple risk scores may help select patients for intensive AF monitoring.
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 | 0.038 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".