MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396943650 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209393

Risk Factors for Perinatal Arterial Ischemic Stroke

2024· article· en· W4396943650 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ratika Srivastava, Lauran Cole, Kimberly Amador, Nils D. Forkert, Mary Dunbar, Michael Shevell, Maryam Oskoui, Anna Basu, Michael J. Rivkin, Eilon Shany, Linda S. de Vries, Deborah Dewey, Nicole Letourneau, Pauline Mouchès, Michael D. Hill, Adam Kirton

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineArterial Ischemic StrokeIschemic strokeStroke (engine)CardiologyInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) is a focal vascular brain injury presumed to occur between the fetal period and the first 28 days of life. It is the leading cause of hemiparetic cerebral palsy. Multiple maternal, intrapartum, delivery, and fetal factors have been associated with PAIS, but studies are limited by modest sample sizes and complex interactions between factors. Machine learning approaches use large and complex data sets to enable unbiased identification of clinical predictors but have not yet been applied to PAIS. We combined large PAIS data sets and used machine learning methods to identify clinical PAIS factors and compare this data-driven approach with previously described literature-driven clinical prediction models. METHODS: Common data elements from 3 registries with patients with PAIS, the Alberta Perinatal Stroke Project, Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry, International Pediatric Stroke Study, and a longitudinal cohort of healthy controls (Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition Study), were used to identify potential predictors of PAIS. Inclusion criteria were term birth and idiopathic PAIS (absence of primary causative medical condition). Data including maternal/pregnancy, intrapartum, and neonatal factors were collected between January 2003 and March 2020. Common data elements were entered into a validated random forest machine learning pipeline to identify the highest predictive features and develop a predictive model. Univariable analyses were completed post hoc to assess the relationship between each predictor and outcome. RESULTS: A machine learning model was developed using data from 2,571 neonates, including 527 cases (20%) and 2,044 controls (80%). With a mean of 21 features selected, the random forest machine learning approach predicted the outcome with approximately 86.5% balanced accuracy. Factors that were selected a priori through literature-driven variable selection that were also identified as most important by the machine learning model were maternal age, recreational substance exposure, tobacco exposure, intrapartum maternal fever, and low Apgar score at 5 minutes. Additional variables identified through machine learning included in utero alcohol exposure, infertility, miscarriage, primigravida, meconium, spontaneous vaginal delivery, neonatal head circumference, and 1-minute Apgar score. Overall, the machine learning model performed better (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93) than the literature-driven model (AUC 0.73). DISCUSSION: Machine learning may be an alternative, unbiased method to identify clinical predictors associated with PAIS. Identification of previously suggested and novel clinical factors requires cautious interpretation but supports the multifactorial nature of PAIS pathophysiology. Our results suggest that identification of neonates at risk of PAIS is possible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207