Prediction models for ischemic stroke and bleeding in dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Patients with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis have a high stroke and bleeding risk. Multivariable prediction models can be used to estimate the risk of ischemic stroke and bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the performance of the existing models in patients on dialysis. Methods MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched, from inception through 12 January 2024, for studies of prediction models for stroke or bleeding, derived or validated in dialysis cohorts. Discrimination measures for models with c-statistic data from three or more cohorts were pooled by random effects meta-analysis and a 95% prediction interval (PI) was calculated. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement and the CHARMS checklist. Results Eight studies were included in this systematic review. All the included studies validated pre-existing models that were derived in cohorts from the general population. None of the identified studies reported the development of a new dialysis specific prediction model for stroke, while dialysis specific risk scores for bleeding were proposed by two studies. In meta-analysis of c-statistics, the CHA2DS2-VASc, CHADS2, ATRIA, HEMORR(2)HAGES and HAS-BLED scores showed very poor discriminative ability in the dialysis population. Six of the eight included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias and certainty of evidence was moderate. Conclusions The existing prediction models for stroke and bleeding have very poor performance in the dialysis population. New dialysis-specific risk scores should be developed to guide clinical decision making in these patients.
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 | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".