ArticleFrontiers in neurology2017
Classification of Different Degrees of Disability Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Decision Tree Analysis from VISTA-ICH Collaboration.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Poor Outcomes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning prediction of motor function in chronic stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Stroke Severity Versus Dysphagia Screen as Driver for Post-stroke Pneumonia.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
- Decision Tree for Early Detection of Cognitive Impairment by Community Pharmacists.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Dimethylarginines in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage: association with outcome, hematoma enlargement, and edema.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePrognostication following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has focused on poor outcome at the expense of lumping together mild and moderate disability. We aimed to develop a novel approach at classifying a range of disability following ICH.
methodsThe Virtual International Stroke Trial Archive collaboration database was searched for patients with ICH and known volume of ICH on baseline CT scans. Disability was partitioned into mild [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days of 0-2], moderate (mRS = 3-4), and severe disabilities (mRS = 5-6). We used binary and trichotomy decision tree methodology. The data were randomly divided into training (2/3 of data) and validation (1/3 data) datasets. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to calculate the accuracy of the decision tree model.
resultsWe identified 957 patients, age 65.9 ± 12.3 years, 63.7% males, and ICH volume 22.6 ± 22.1 ml. The binary tree showed that lower ICH volume (<13.7 ml), age (<66.5 years), serum glucose (<8.95 mmol/l), and systolic blood pressure (<170 mm Hg) discriminate between mild versus moderate-to-severe disabilities with AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85). Large ICH volume (>27.9 ml), older age (>69.5 years), and low Glasgow Coma Scale (<15) classify severe disability with AUC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.86). The trichotomy tree showed that ICH volume, age, and serum glucose can separate mild, moderate, and severe disability groups with AUC 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.87).
conclusionBoth the binary and trichotomy methods provide equivalent discrimination of disability outcome after ICH. The trichotomy method can classify three categories at once, whereas this action was not possible with the binary method. The trichotomy method may be of use to clinicians and trialists for classifying a range of disability in ICH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.