Introducing the Futile Recanalization Prediction Score (FRPS): A Novel Approach to Predict and Mitigate Ineffective Recanalization after Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to develop and validate the Futile Recanalization Prediction Score (FRPS), a novel tool designed to predict the severity risk of FR and aid in pre- and post-EVT risk assessments. Methods: The FRPS was developed using a rigorous process involving the selection of predictor variables based on clinical relevance and potential impact. Initial equations were derived from previous meta-analyses and refined using various statistical techniques. We employed machine learning algorithms, specifically random forest regression, to capture nonlinear relationships and enhance model performance. Cross-validation with five folds was used to assess generalizability and model fit. Results: The final FRPS model included variables such as age, sex, atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), hyperlipidemia, cognitive impairment, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), onset-to-puncture time, sICH, and NIHSS score. The random forest model achieved a mean R-squared value of approximately 0.992. Severity ranges for FRPS scores were defined as mild (FRPS < 66), moderate (FRPS 66–80), and severe (FRPS > 80). Conclusions: The FRPS provides valuable insights for treatment planning and patient management by predicting the severity risk of FR. This tool may improve the identification of candidates most likely to benefit from EVT and enhance prognostic accuracy post-EVT. Further clinical validation in diverse settings is warranted to assess its effectiveness and reliability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".