Clinical Predictors of Acute Ischemia in Patients with Low-Risk Neurological Deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of acute ischemia typically relies on evidence of ischemic lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a limited diagnostic resource. We aimed to determine associations of clinical variables and acute infarcts on MRI in patients with suspected low-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke and to assess their predictive ability. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the Diagnosis of Uncertain-Origin Benign Transient Neurological Symptoms (DOUBT) study, a prospective, multicenter cohort study investigating the frequency of acute infarcts in patients with low-risk neurological symptoms. Primary outcome parameter was defined as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-positive lesions on MRI. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate associations of clinical characteristics with MRI-DWI-positivity. Model performance was evaluated by Harrel's c-statistic. RESULTS: In 1028 patients, age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.01-1.05), motor (OR 2.18, 95%CI 1.27-3.65) or speech symptoms (OR 2.53, 95%CI 1.28-4.80), and no previous identical event (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.07-2.99) were positively associated with MRI-DWI-positivity. Female sex (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.32-0.68), dizziness and gait instability (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.14-0.69), normal exam (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.35-0.85) and resolved symptoms (OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.30-0.78) were negatively associated. Symptom duration and any additional symptoms/symptom combinations were not associated. Predictive ability of the model was moderate (c-statistic 0.72, 95%CI 0.69-0.77). CONCLUSION: Detailed clinical information is helpful in assessing the risk of ischemia in patients with low-risk neurological events, but a predictive model had only moderate discriminative ability. Patients with clinically suspected low-risk TIA or minor stroke require MRI to confirm the diagnosis of cerebral ischemia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".