ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
External Validation and Recalibration of a Mortality Prediction Model for Patients with Ischaemic Stroke.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundStroke is a highly prevalent disease that can provoke severe disability. We evaluate a predictive model based on the Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS) compiled by the Spain Health Ministry, obtained for the period 2008-2012 for patients with ischaemic stroke in Spain, to establish the model's validity and to optimise its calibration. The MBDS is the main clinical-administrative database for hospitalisations recorded in Spain, and to our knowledge, no predictive models for stroke mortality have previously been developed using this resource. The main study aim is to perform an external validation and recalibration of the coefficients of this predictive model with respect to a chronologically later cohort. MATERIAL AND
methodsExternal validation (testing the model on a different cohort to assess its performance) and recalibration (validation with optimisation of model coefficients) were performed using the MBDS for patients admitted for ischaemic stroke in the period 2016-2018. A cohort study was designed, in which a recalibrated model was obtained by applying the variables of the original model without their coefficients. The variables from the original model were then applied to the subsequent cohort, together with the coefficients from the initial model. The areas under the curve (AUC) of the recalibration and the external validation procedure were compared.
resultsThe recalibrated model produced an AUC of 0.743 and was composed of the following variables: age (odds ratio, OR:1.073), female sex (OR:1.143), ischaemic heart disease (OR:1.192), hypertension (OR:0.719), atrial fibrillation (OR:1.414), hyperlipidaemia (OR:0.652), heart failure (OR:2.133) and posterior circulation stroke (OR: 0.755). External validation produced an AUC of 0.726.
conclusionsThe recalibrated clinical model thus obtained presented moderate-high discriminant ability and was generalisable to predict death for patients with ischaemic stroke. Rigorous external validation slightly decreased the AUC but confirmed the validity of the baseline model for the chronologically later cohort.
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.