ArticleJournal of inflammation research2025
A Novel Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Pneumonia After Intracerebral Hemorrhage.
Article in Journal of inflammation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reflections on the Clinical Application and Optimization of the Pneumonia Risk Prediction Model Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage [Letter].Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pneumonia is among the most dangerous complications of infection after intracerebral hemorrhage. We aimed to create a novel nomogram for pneumonia after intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods and Results: The data from the Chinese Cerebral Hemorrhage: Mechanism and Intervention (CHEERY) study was analyzed. Thirty percent of qualified patients were placed in the validation group (n=763) while seventy percent of them were randomly placed in the training group (n=1784). In the multivariate analysis, ten variables were included in the model: age (β= 0.023, P<0.001), hospital days (β=0.392, P<0.001), baseline mRS score (β=0.484, P<0.001), baseline GCS score (β=-0.285, P<0.001), hs-CRP (β=0.328, P<0.001), hematoma volume (β=0.376, P<0.001), brainstem hemorrhage (β=0.956, P=0.002), intraventricular hemorrhage (β=0.629, P=0.001), and β-blocker (β=0.899, P<0.001) In the training subset, the areas under curve were 0.805 (95% CI, 0.773-0.833). The model was subsequently examined in the validation group, with the area under curve 0.767 (95% CI, 0.716-0.807). There was strong agreement between the anticipated and actual survival rates in the nomogram calibration curves for both the training and validation groups. The clinical value of the model is assessed by means of Decision Curve Analysis. In addition, we validated other models with this cohort, which showed that our model had better discrimination. Moreover, the area under the curve of the catboost model established using the above nine variables in the training set and the validation set is 0.87(95% CI, 0.80-0.90) and 0.77(95% CI, 0.72-0.80). Conclusion: We have established a simple and easy predictive tool. By evaluating the incidence of pneumonia after intracerebral hemorrhage, we can identify high-risk groups early. At the same time, our study also suggests that doctors should be cautious in the use of β-blocker in clinical decision-making.
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.