ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
External Assessment of the Anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor Encephalitis One-Year Functional Status Score in Chinese Pediatric Patients.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elevated CHI3L1 as a Potential Biomarker of Cognitive Dysfunction in Anti-NMDAR Encephalitis: Evidence From Clinical Results and Mice Model.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Long-Term Clinical and Biological Prognostic Factors of Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis in Children.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2025Observational
- Assessment of Prognostic Factors and Validity of Scoring Models in Childhood Autoimmune Encephalitis.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Long-Term Outcome of Pediatric Patients with Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis in a Single Center.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: to assess the performance of the Anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor encephalitis (NMDAR) One-Year Functional Status (NEOS) score in predicting one-year functional outcome in Chinese children with anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Methods: children with anti-NMDAR encephalitis at the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were retrospectively enrolled from January 2014 to December 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at one-year follow-up. Discrimination of the NEOS score was assessed by the area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration of the NEOS score was assessed by comparing predicted probabilities with observed probabilities using a calibration curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The clinical practicability of the NEOS score was evaluated by performing a decision curve analysis. Results: one hundred seventy-five children (101 females and 74 males) with anti-NMDAR encephalitis and a median age of 7.7 years were enrolled. Of those, 149 (85.1%) had a good outcome at 1 year (mRS ≤ 2), and the remaining 26 (14.9%) had a poor outcome (mRS > 2). Patients with a higher NEOS score had a significantly higher mRS at one-year follow-up [Spearman r = 0.3878, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.2500-0.5103, P < 0.001]. The AUC of the NEOS score was 0.870 (95% CI: 0.801-0.938, P < 0.001). The observed probability and predicted probability showed moderate consistency in the calibration curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P = 0.912). The decision curve analysis showed that using the NEOS score to predict one-year outcomes could provide additional net benefit during clinical practice. Conclusions: the NEOS score is a potentially reliable model to predict the one-year functional outcome in Chinese children with anti-NMDAR encephalitis.
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.