MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306980358 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.039825

Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of Prehospital Stroke Scales Across the Range of Deficit Severity: Analysis of the Prehospital Triage of Patients With Suspected Stroke Study

2022· article· en· W4306980358 on OpenAlexaff
Aravind Ganesh, Ruben M. van de Wijdeven, Johanna M. Ospel, Martijne H.C. Duvekot, Esmée Venema, Anouk D. Rozeman, Walid Moudrous, Kirsten R.I.S. Dorresteijn, Jan-Hein J. Hensen, Adriaan C.G.M. van Es, Aad van der Lugt, Henk Kerkhoff, Diederik W.J. Dippel, Mayank Goyal, Bob Roozenbeek, Hester F. Lingsma, Frédérique H Vermeij, Kees C.L. Alblas, Laus J.M.M. Mulder, Annemarie D. Wijnhoud, Lisette Maasland, Roeland P.J. van Eijkelenburg, Marileen Biekart, Merel Willeboer, Bianca Buijck, Pieter Jan van Doormaal, Jeannette Bakker, Aarnout Plaisier, Geert J. Lycklama à Nijeholt, Amber E. Hoek, Erick Oskam, Mandy M.A. van der Zon, Egon D. Zwets, Jan Willem Kuiper, Bruno J.M. van Moll, Mirjam Woudenberg, Arnoud M. de Leeuw, Anja Noordam-Reijm, Timo Bevelander, Vicky Chalos, Eveline Wiegers, Lennard Wolff, Dennis C. van Kalkeren, Jochem van den Biggelaar

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriageStroke (engine)Predictive valueEmergency medical servicesSeverity of illnessInternal medicineEmergency medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The usefulness of prehospital scales for identifying anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (aLVO) in patients with suspected stroke may vary depending on the severity of their presentation. The performance of these scales across the spectrum of deficit severity is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 8 prehospital scales for identifying aLVO across the spectrum of deficit severity. Methods: We used data from the PRESTO study (Prehospital Triage of Patients With Suspected Stroke Symptoms), a prospective observational study comparing prehospital stroke scales in detecting aLVO in suspected stroke patients. We used the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, assessed in-hospital, as a proxy for the Clinical Global Impression of stroke severity during prehospital assessment by paramedics. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and the difference in aLVO probabilities with a positive or negative prehospital scale test (ΔP aLVO ) for each scale for mild (NIHSS 0–4), intermediate (NIHSS 5–9), moderate (NIHSS 10–14), and severe deficits (NIHSS≥15). Results: Among 1033 patients with suspected stroke, 119 (11.5%) had an aLVO, of whom 19 (16.0%) had mild, 25 (21.0%) had intermediate, 30 (25.2%) had moderate, and 45 (37.8%) had severe deficits. The scales had low sensitivity and positive predictive value in patients with mild-intermediate deficits, and poor specificity, negative predictive value, and accuracy with moderate-severe deficits. Positive results achieved the highest ΔP aLVO in patients with mild deficits. Negative results achieved the highest ΔP aLVO with severe deficits, but the probability of aLVO with a negative result in the severe range was higher than with a positive test in the mild range. Conclusions: Commonly-used prehospital stroke scales show variable performance across the range of deficit severity. Probability of aLVO remains high with a negative test in severely affected patients. Studies reporting prehospital stroke scale performance should be appraised in the context of the NIHSS distribution of their samples.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207