Dataset Information

JURaSSiC: accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes.

ABSTRACT: We compared the accuracy of clinicians and a risk score (iScore) to predict observed outcomes following an acute ischemic stroke.The JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) study assigned 111 clinicians with expertise in acute stroke care to predict the probability of outcomes of 5 ischemic stroke case scenarios. Cases (n = 1,415) were selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical presentations from a pool of more than 12,000 stroke patients admitted to 12 stroke centers. The primary outcome was prediction of death or disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ?3) at discharge within the 95% confidence interval (CI) of observed outcomes. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and death or institutionalization at discharge.Clinicians made 1,661 predictions with overall accuracy of 16.9% for death or disability at discharge, 46.9% for 30-day mortality, and 33.1% for death or institutionalization at discharge. In contrast, 90% of the iScore-based estimates were within the 95% CI of observed outcomes. Nearly half (n = 53 of 111; 48%) of participants were unable to accurately predict the probability of the primary outcome in any of the 5 rated cases. Less than 1% (n = 1) provided accurate predictions in 4 of the 5 cases and none accurately predicted all 5 case outcomes. In multivariable analyses, the presence of patient characteristics associated with poor outcomes (mRS ?3 or death) in previous studies (older age, high NIH Stroke Scale score, and nonlacunar subtype) were associated with more accurate clinician predictions of death at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% CI 1.57-3.67) and with a trend for more accurate predictions of death or disability at discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.99-3.46).Clinicians with expertise in stroke performed poorly compared to a validated tool in predicting the outcomes of patients with an acute ischemic stroke. Use of the risk stroke outcome tool may be superior for decision-making following an acute ischemic stroke.

SUBMITTER: Saposnik G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3776534 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

JURaSSiC: accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes.

Saposnik Gustavo G Cote Robert R Mamdani Muhammad M Raptis Stavroula S Thorpe Kevin E KE Fang Jiming J Redelmeier Donald A DA Goldstein Larry B LB

Neurology 20130628 5

<h4>Objective</h4>We compared the accuracy of clinicians and a risk score (iScore) to predict observed outcomes following an acute ischemic stroke.<h4>Methods</h4>The JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) study assigned 111 clinicians with expertise in acute stroke care to predict the probability of outcomes of 5 ischemic stroke case scenarios. Cases (n = 1,415) were selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical presentations from a pool of more ...[more]

PMID: 23897872

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe incremental value of polygenic risk scores in addition to well-established risk prediction models for coronary artery disease (CAD) is uncertain.ObjectiveTo examine whether a polygenic risk score for CAD improves risk prediction beyond pooled cohort equations.Design, setting, and participantsObservational study of UK Biobank participants enrolled from 2006 to 2010. A case-control sample of 15 947 prevalent CAD cases and equal number of age and sex frequency-matched controls was used to optimize the predictive performance of a polygenic risk score for CAD based on summary statistics from published genome-wide association studies. A separate cohort of 352 660 individuals (with follow-up to 2017) was used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the polygenic risk score, pooled cohort equations, and both combined for incident CAD.ExposuresPolygenic risk score for CAD, pooled cohort equations, and both combined.Main outcomes and measuresCAD (myocardial infarction and its related sequelae). Discrimination, calibration, and reclassification using a risk threshold of 7.5% were assessed.ResultsIn the cohort of 352 660 participants (mean age, 55.9 years; 205 297 women [58.2%]) used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the examined models, there were 6272 incident CAD events over a median of 8 years of follow-up. CAD discrimination for polygenic risk score, pooled cohort equations, and both combined resulted in C statistics of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.62), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.77), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79), respectively. The change in C statistic between the latter 2 models was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). Calibration of the models showed overestimation of risk by pooled cohort equations, which was corrected after recalibration. Using a risk threshold of 7.5%, addition of the polygenic risk score to pooled cohort equations resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 4.4% (95% CI, 3.5% to 5.3%) for cases and -0.4% (95% CI, -0.5% to -0.4%) for noncases (overall net reclassification improvement, 4.0% [95% CI, 3.1% to 4.9%]).Conclusions and relevanceThe addition of a polygenic risk score for CAD to pooled cohort equations was associated with a statistically significant, yet modest, improvement in the predictive accuracy for incident CAD and improved risk stratification for only a small proportion of individuals. The use of genetic information over the pooled cohort equations model warrants further investigation before clinical implementation.

Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no validated risk prediction model for recurrent events among patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Considering that the application of conventional risk scores has contextual limitations, new strategies are needed to develop such a model. Here, we set out to develop and validate a comprehensive risk prediction model for stroke recurrence in AIS patients with AF.MethodsAIS patients with AF were collected from multicenter registries in South Korea and Japan. A developmental dataset was constructed with 5648 registered cases from both countries for the period 2011‒2014. An external validation dataset was also created, consisting of Korean AIS subjects with AF registered between 2015 and 2018. Event outcomes were collected during 1 year after the index stroke. A multivariable prediction model was developed using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model with non-stroke mortality as a competing risk. The model incorporated 21 clinical variables and was further validated, calibrated, and revised using the external validation dataset.ResultsThe developmental dataset consisted of 4483 Korean and 1165 Japanese patients (mean age, 74.3 ± 10.2 years; male 53%); 338 patients (6%) had recurrent stroke and 903 (16%) died. The clinical profiles of the external validation set (n = 3668) were comparable to those of the developmental dataset. The c-statistics of the final model was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.66 ‒0.71). The developed prediction model did not show better discriminative ability for predicting stroke recurrence than the conventional risk prediction tools (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and ATRIA).ConclusionsNeither conventional risk stratification tools nor our newly developed comprehensive prediction model using available clinical factors seemed to be suitable for identifying patients at high risk of recurrent ischemic stroke among AIS patients with AF in this modern direct oral anticoagulant era. Detailed individual information, including imaging, may be warranted to build a more robust and precise risk prediction model for stroke survivors with AF.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and often serious complication after stroke. Although several risk factors for post-stroke GIB have been identified, no reliable or validated scoring system is currently available to predict GIB after acute stroke in routine clinical practice or clinical trials. In the present study, we aimed to develop and validate a risk model (acute ischemic stroke associated gastrointestinal bleeding score, the AIS-GIB score) to predict in-hospital GIB after acute ischemic stroke.MethodsThe AIS-GIB score was developed from data in the China National Stroke Registry (CNSR). Eligible patients in the CNSR were randomly divided into derivation (60%) and internal validation (40%) cohorts. External validation was performed using data from the prospective Chinese Intracranial Atherosclerosis Study (CICAS). Independent predictors of in-hospital GIB were obtained using multivariable logistic regression in the derivation cohort, and ?-coefficients were used to generate point scoring system for the AIS-GIB. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess model discrimination and calibration, respectively.ResultsA total of 8,820, 5,882, and 2,938 patients were enrolled in the derivation, internal validation and external validation cohorts. The overall in-hospital GIB after AIS was 2.6%, 2.3%, and 1.5% in the derivation, internal, and external validation cohort, respectively. An 18-point AIS-GIB score was developed from the set of independent predictors of GIB including age, gender, history of hypertension, hepatic cirrhosis, peptic ulcer or previous GIB, pre-stroke dependence, admission National Institutes of Health stroke scale score, Glasgow Coma Scale score and stroke subtype (Oxfordshire). The AIS-GIB score showed good discrimination in the derivation (0.79; 95% CI, 0.764-0.825), internal (0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82) and external (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82) validation cohorts. The AIS-GIB score was well calibrated in the derivation (P = 0.42), internal (P = 0.45) and external (P = 0.86) validation cohorts.ConclusionThe AIS-GIB score is a valid clinical grading scale to predict in-hospital GIB after AIS. Further studies on the effect of the AIS-GIB score on reducing GIB and improving outcome after AIS are warranted.

Dataset Information

JURaSSiC: accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes.

Publications

JURaSSiC: accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets