MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409797910 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.040304

Comparing Early National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Versus 90‐Day Modified Rankin Scale Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials: A Systematic Review and Analysis

2025· review· en· W4409797910 on OpenAlexaff
Leon A. Rinkel, Johanna M. Ospel, Manon Kappelhof, Arshia Sehgal, Rosalie McDonough, Michael Tymianski, Michael D. Hill, Mayank Goyal, Aravind Ganesh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsNoNO (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Clinical trialInternal medicinePhysical therapyIschemic strokeEmergency medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Early National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) assessment may provide practical benefits over 90‐day modified Rankin Scale (mRS), but it is unclear how it compares in adjudicating randomized clinical trial (RCT) results in acute ischemic stroke. Methods and Results We searched Ovid Medline (inception to April 1, 2023) and included RCTs of acute therapies for acute ischemic stroke with data for both 90‐day mRS and NIHSS within 7 days. Primary outcome was agreement between trial results (classified as positive, negative, or neutral) based on 24‐hour NIHSS and 90‐day mRS scores. We additionally assessed agreement for 2‐hour, 48‐hour, 72‐ to 96‐hour, and 5‐ to 7‐day NIHSS scores. We aimed to validate our findings using individual patient data from the ESCAPE (Randomized Assessment of Rapid Endovascular Treatment of Ischemic Stroke) and ESCAPE‐NA1 (Safety and Efficacy of Nerinetide [NA‐1] in Subjects Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy for Stroke) RCTs. We included 116 trials (44 387 patients), contributing 165 NIHSS assessments. The 24‐hour NIHSS scores resulted in the same classification as 90‐day mRS scores in 61/73 (83.6%) trials (Cohen's kappa, 0.64 [95% CI: 0.45–0.83] and Gwet's agreement coefficient 1, 0.79 [95% CI: 0.67–0.90]). Agreement was not statistically different by timing of NIHSS assessments (range 75%–100%, P =0.33). Individual patient data showed higher agreement for assessments between 48 hours and 7 days, varying by NIHSS dichotomization cutoffs (NIHSS score, 0–2; 2 hours, 56.6%; 24 hours, 66.6%; 48 hours, 71.8%; 5–7 days: 76.5%, P <0.01; NIHSS score, 0–7; 2 hours, 72.8%; 24 hours, 80.5%; 48 hours, 83.1%; 5–7 days: 84.7%, P <0.01). Conclusions The 24‐hour NIHSS scores aligned with 90‐day mRS scores in 84% of RCT results, indicating intermediate‐to‐good agreement. However, individual patient data showed that early NIHSS risks misclassifying around 1/4 patients. These data contribute to a better understanding of the nuances of early NIHSS score as an outcome in acute ischemic stroke RCTs.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.018
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→