ArticleHeliyon2023
Development of a model to predict the risk of cerebral infarction in acute vestibular syndrome.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to develop a model to predict the risk of cerebral infarction in acute vestibular syndrome and assist emergency physicians in quickly identifying patients with cerebral infarction. Materials and methods: We looked at 262 patients who were split into cerebral infarction and peripheral vertigo groups. Stepwise regression and Lasso's approach were used to screen for variables, and Boothstrap's method was used to evaluate the model's discrimination and calibration. The model's performance was compared against TriAGe+, ABCD2, and PCI scores using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve. Clinical decision-making was aided by the use of clinical impact and decision curves. Results: In the end, nine risk factors were chosen for model 2, and ten risk factors were chosen for model 1. Model 2 was adopted as the final model. The areas under the receiver operator curve value of the model2 were 0.910(P = 0.000), much higher than the areas under the receiver operator curve value of the TriAGe + scores system and that of the PCI scores system. The clinical decision curve shows that when the threshold probability is 0.05, using the nomogram to predict cerebral infarction has more benefits than either the treat-all-patients scheme or the treat-none scheme. The clinical impact curve shows that when the threshold probability is 0.6 the model predicts disease occurrence in general agreement with the occurrence of the real disease. Conclusion: This study model can help emergency room physicians quickly triage and treat patients by accurately identifying cerebral infarction patients.
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.