ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
External validation of the MR PREDICTS@24H model: predicting functional outcome after endovascular treatment in stroke.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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.
- Validation and simplification of the MR PREDICTS @24H model for outcome prediction after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2026Observational
- No-reflow phenomenon after vessel recanalization in acute ischemic stroke: mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment directions.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chalos Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including a selection of adult (≥18 years old) ischaemic stroke patients eligible for EVT in a tretiary care center between January 2014 and May 2023. Model performance was assessed using C-statistics for discrimination and calibration plots for goodness of fit. Results: Among 254 eligible stroke patients, the model demonstrates a strong discriminatory performance for both functional independence (C-statistics 0.92; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.95) and survival (C-statistic 0.83; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Compared with the MR CLEAN Registry, no significant differences were observed in discriminative ability (functional independence: z-score 0.54, p=0.590; survival: z-score -1.66, p=0.0962). Conclusions: The MR PREDICTS@24H model reliably predicts outcomes in a real-world setting and may help clinicians in the communication with patient relatives.
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.