Trial reportAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2024
A novel score to predict progression in anterior circulation single subcortical infarction patients.
Trial report in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveProgressive infarction (PI) has a negative effect on functional prognosis. Our study aimed to develop and validate a risk score for predicting PI in patients with anterior circulation single subcortical infarction (ACSSI).
methodsBetween January 2020 and October 2022, we retrospectively enrolled 638 eligible patients with ACSSI. Two-thirds of the eligible patients were randomly allocated to the training cohort (n = 425). Another resampling sample was formed through the bootstrap method and was used as the validation group (n = 425). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent factors associated with PI. Each factor was then point assigned based on β-coefficient and a risk scoring system was developed. This scoring system was internally validated through 1000-bootstrap resamplings. The C-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow test were used to assess model discrimination and calibration.
resultsPI occurred in 121 patients, accounting for 19.0% of the total patients. A 7-point NTS score system based on the initial NIHSS score, triglyceride-glucose index, and the number of infarct slices on axial diffusion-weighted imaging was developed. The NTS score showed good discrimination and calibration in the training cohort (C-statistic = 0.686; p value of Hosmer-Lemeshow test = 0.797) and validation cohort (C-statistic = 0.681; p value of Hosmer-Lemeshow test = 0.451). The three risk levels for predicting PI in the training and validation cohorts based on NTS score were as follows: low (0-2, 9.6% vs. 9.3%), intermediate (3-5, 28.2% vs. 26.7%), and high risk (6-7, 60.2% vs. 57.4%).
interpretationThe NTS score is a valid and convenient risk score for predicting PI in ACSSI 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.