Dataset Information

Validation of a prediction model for long-term outcome of aphasia after stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

About 30% of stroke patients suffer from aphasia. As aphasia strongly affects daily life, most patients request a prediction of outcome of their language function. Prognostic models provide predictions of outcome, but external validation is essential before models can be used in clinical practice. We aim to externally validate the prognostic model from the Sequential Prognostic Evaluation of Aphasia after stroKe (SPEAK-model) for predicting the long-term outcome of aphasia caused by stroke.

Methods

We used data from the Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study - 3 (RATS-3), a multicenter RCT with inclusion criteria similar to SPEAK, an observational prospective study. Baseline assessment in SPEAK was four days after stroke and in RATS-3 eight days. Outcome of the SPEAK-model was the Aphasia Severity Rating Scale (ASRS) at 1 year, dichotomized into good (ASRS-score of 4 or 5) and poor outcome (ASRS-score < 4). In RATS-3, ASRS-scores at one year were not available, but we could use six month ASRS-scores as outcome. Model performance was assessed with calibration and discrimination.

Results

We included 131 stroke patients with first-ever aphasia. At six months, 86 of 124 (68%) had a good outcome, whereas the model predicted 88%. Discrimination of the model was good with an area under the receiver operation characteristic curve of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.81-0.94), but calibration was unsatisfactory. The model overestimated the probability of good outcome (calibration-in-the-large α = - 1.98) and the effect of the predictors was weaker in the validation data than in the derivation data (calibration slope β = 0.88). We therefore recalibrated the model to predict good outcome at six months.

Conclusion

The original model, renamed SPEAK-12, has good discriminative properties, but needs further external validation. After additional external validation, the updated SPEAK-model, SPEAK-6, may be used in daily practice to discriminate between patients with good and patients with poor outcome of aphasia at six months after stroke.

Trial registration

RATS-3 was registered on January 13th 2012 in the Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3271 . SPEAK was not listed in a trial registry.

SUBMITTER: Nouwens F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6191997 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe Early Prediction of Functional Outcome after Stroke (EPOS) model for independent gait is a tool to predict between days 2 and 9 poststroke whether patients will regain independent gait 6 months after stroke. External validation of the model is important to determine its clinical applicability and generalizability by testing its performance in an independent cohort. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a temporal and geographical external validation of the EPOS prediction model for independent gait after stroke but with the endpoint being 3 months instead of the original 6 months poststroke.MethodsTwo prospective longitudinal cohort studies consisting of patients with first-ever stroke admitted to a Swiss hospital stroke unit. Sitting balance and strength of the paretic leg were tested at days 1 and 8 post-stroke in Cohort I and at days 3 and 9 in Cohort II. Independent gait was assessed 3 months after symptom onset. The performance of the model in terms of discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve; AUC), classification, and calibration was assessed.ResultsIn Cohort I [N = 39, median age: 74 years, 33% women, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 9], the AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)] was 0.675 (0.510, 0.841) on day 1 and 0.921 (0.811, 1.000) on day 8. For Cohort II (N = 78, median age: 69 years, 37% women, median NIHSS 8), this was 0.801 (0.684, 0.918) on day 3 and 0.846 (0.741, 0.951) on day 9.Discussion and conclusionExternal validation of the EPOS prediction model for independent gait 3 months after stroke resulted in an acceptable performance from day 3 onward in mild-to-moderately affected patients with first-ever stroke without severe prestroke disability. The impact of applying this model in clinical practice should be investigated within this subgroup of patients with stroke. To improve the generalizability of patients with recurrent stroke and those with more severe, neurological comorbidities, the performance of the EPOS model within these patients should be determined across different geographical areas.

Project description:ImportancePerinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) is a focal brain injury in term neonates that is identified postnatally but is presumed to occur near the time of birth. Many pregnancy, delivery, and fetal factors have been associated with PAIS, but early risk detection is lacking; thus, targeted treatment and prevention efforts are currently limited.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a diagnostic risk prediction model that uses common clinical factors to predict the probability of PAIS in a term neonate.Design, setting, and participantsIn this diagnostic study, a prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression with registry-based case data collected between January 2003, and March 2020, from the Alberta Perinatal Stroke Project, Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry, International Pediatric Stroke Study, and Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study. Criteria for inclusion were term birth and no underlying medical conditions associated with stroke diagnosis. Records with more than 20% missing data were excluded. Variable selection was based on peer-reviewed literature. Data were analyzed in September 2021.ExposuresClinical pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal factors associated with PAIS as common data elements across the 4 registries.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the discriminative accuracy of the model predicting PAIS, measured by the concordance statistic (C statistic).ResultsOf 2571 term neonates in the initial analysis (527 [20%] case and 2044 [80%] control individuals; gestational age range, 37-42 weeks), 1389 (54%) were male, with a greater proportion of males among cases compared with controls (318 [60%] vs 1071 [52%]). The final model was developed using 1924 neonates, including 321 cases (17%) and 1603 controls (83%), and 9 clinical factors associated with risk of PAIS in term neonates: maternal age, tobacco exposure, recreational drug exposure, preeclampsia, chorioamnionitis, intrapartum maternal fever, emergency cesarean delivery, low 5-minute Apgar score, and male sex. The model demonstrated good discrimination between cases and controls (C statistic, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76) and good model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .20). Internal validation techniques yielded similar C statistics (0.73 [95% CI, 0.69-0.77] with bootstrap resampling, 10-fold cross-validated area under the curve, 0.72 [bootstrap bias-corrected 95% CI, 0.69-0.76]), as did a sensitivity analysis using cases and controls from Alberta, Canada, only (C statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that clinical variables can be used to develop and internally validate a model to predict the risk of PAIS in term neonates, with good predictive performance and strong internal validity. Identifying neonates with a high probability of PAIS who could then be screened for early diagnosis and treatment may be associated with reductions in lifelong morbidity for affected individuals and their families.