MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414020703 · doi:10.3390/jcm14176268

Performance of Stratification Scores on the Risk of Stroke After a Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414020703 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios Deris, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki, Mukul Sharma, Raed A. Joundi, Ashkan Shoamanesh, Abhilekh Srivastava, Aristeidis H. Katsanos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk stratificationStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeMeta-analysisTransient (computer programming)Stratification (seeds)CardiologyInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients after a transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of subsequent stroke. There are various scores that aim to accurately identify patients at the highest risk of stroke. However, without comparisons between these scores, it is still unknown which is the score with the best predictive utility. Our study aims to identify the risk stratification score with the highest utility to identify patients at high risk for stroke within 90 days after a TIA. Methods: The MEDLINE and Scopus databases were systematically searched on 1 December 2023 for observational cohort studies assessing the ability of a score to predict a stroke within the first 90 days from the index TIA event. Only studies that had a direct comparison of at least two scores were included. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and specificity, along with relevant 95% credible intervals, and between-score and between-study heterogeneity were estimated. We also estimated relative sensitivities and relative specificities compared with the ABCD2 score. We ranked each score according to its predictive accuracy based on both sensitivity and specificity estimates, using the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Results: Our systematic review highlighted 9 studies including 14 discrete cohorts. The performance of all scores to identify patients at high risk for stroke recurrence within 90 days following a TIA was low (pooled sensitivity range 48–64%, pooled specificity range 59–72%). In the network meta-analysis, we analyzed 6 studies with 11 discrete cohorts, including data from 8217 patients. The ABCD3-I score demonstrated the highest DOR, followed by the ESRS, ABCD, California, and ABCD2. The SROC curves demonstrate no significant differences in the performance of the scores, using the ABCD score as the common comparator. Conclusions: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of observational cohort studies of patients who experienced TIA and were followed for the occurrence of subsequent stroke, we failed to identify a score performing significantly better for the prediction of stroke at 90 days. New models are needed for the prediction and stroke risk stratification following a TIA.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.043
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→