MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366816014 · doi:10.1101/2023.04.17.23288611

iSPAN: Improved prediction of outcomes post thrombectomy with Machine Learning

2023· preprint· en· W4366816014 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brendan S. Kelly, Prateek Mathur, John Duignan, Sarah Power, Edward H. Lee, Yuhao Huang, Silvia D. Vaca, Laura M. Prolo, Kristen W. Yeom, Aonghus Lawlor, Ronan P. Killeen

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience Foundation IrelandHealth Research BoardWellcome TrustHealth Service ExecutiveRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsMedicineWeightingStroke (engine)Span (engineering)Clinical PracticeArtificial intelligenceMachine learningComputer sciencePhysical therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background This study aimed to develop and evaluate a machine learning model and a novel clinical score for predicting outcomes in stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy. Methods This retrospective study included all patients aged over 18 years with an anterior circulation stroke treated at a thrombectomy centre from 2010 to 2020. External validation data was obtained. The primary outcome variable was day 90 mRS ≥3. Existing clinical scores (SPAN and PRE) and Machine Learning (ML) models were compared. A novel clinical score (iSPAN) was derived by adding an optimised weighting of the most important ML features to the SPAN and compared results. Results 812 patients were initially included (397 female, average age 73), 62 for external validation. The best performing clinical score and ML model were SPAN and XGBoost (sensitivity specificity and accuracy 0.967, 0.290, 0.628 and 0.783, 0.693, 0.738 respectively). A significant difference was found overall and XGBoost was more accurate than SPAN (p< 0.0018). The most important features were Age, mTICI and total number of passes. The addition of 11 points for mTICI of ≤ 2B and ≥ 3 points for 3 passes to the SPAN achieved the best accuracy and was used to create the iSPAN. iSPAN was not significantly less accurate than XGBoost (p>0.5). In the external validation set, iSPAN and SPAN achieved sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of (0.735, 0.862, 0.79) and (0.471, 0.897, 0.67), respectively. Conclusions iSPAN incorporates machine-derived features to achieve better predictions compared to existing scores. It is not inferior to the XGB model and is externally generalisable. Key Points An XGB model performed better than existing scores and other tested models for prognostication post EVT. It identified mTICI and number of passes as important and modifiable factors. Integrating these into the SPAN score (iSPAN) was not inferior to the XGB model and is generalisable and easier to use and interpret.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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