ArticleBMC neurology2026
Development and validation of a prognostic model for neurological deterioration in acute posterior circulation cerebral infarction.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. 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.
- Prediction model for early neurological deterioration in large artery atherosclerotic stroke.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeurological deterioration occurs in 8%-40% of patients with acute posterior circulation cerebral infarction (APCCI), leading to higher disability and mortality. We developed and validated a prognostic model integrating dynamic physiological indicators and quantitative neuroimaging indicators for early risk stratification.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled patients with APCCI from Peking University Shenzhen Hospital into training set (n = 447) and testing set (n = 94). The model incorporates quantitative neuroimaging (mean apparent diffusion coefficient value (MAV) of infarct lesions) and dynamic physiological monitoring (systolic blood pressure variability), combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to better characterize infarction and hemodynamic instability. A nomogram was constructed and evaluated using discrimination, calibration, and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsThe model demonstrated moderate discrimination, with an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62–0.86) in the testing set, and ideal calibration (Brier score 0.15). DCA confirmed superior clinical benefit within an 8%–56% threshold range. Both MAV and blood pressure variability were significant predictors, highlighting their added prognostic value beyond conventional factors.
conclusionsThe prognostic model effectively identifies APCCI patients at risk of neurological deterioration by incorporating innovative neuroimaging and dynamic monitoring indicators. Temporal validation shows promising performance in the validation cohort, and further multi-center validation is warranted for clinical adoption.
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.