ArticleMilitary Medical Research2026
Infarct volume versus NIHSS score for ischemic and bleeding risk stratification after acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Military Medical Research, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whether infarct volume refines assessment of recurrent ischemic stroke (IS) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) risk following acute IS beyond the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) remains uncertain. We compared their performance in ischemic-hemorrhagic risk stratification. Methods: We included 10,545 patients with acute IS from the Third China National Stroke Registry (CNSR-III) with diffusion-weighted imaging/apparent diffusion coefficient-derived infarct volume and NIHSS data. Outcomes were 90-day recurrent IS and ICH, analyzed separately. Two reciprocal Cox models were used: one with infarct volume adjusted for NIHSS, and another with NIHSS adjusted for infarct volume. Stratified analyses, restricted cubic splines, and grouped threshold analyses were exploratory. In the GOLDEN BRIDGE II study, recurrent IS and all bleeding events were assessed for external consistency. Results: In CNSR-III, larger infarct volume was independently associated with recurrent IS [hazard ratio ( Conclusions: Infarct volume better characterizes post-stroke ischemic-hemorrhagic risk than NIHSS. Prospective validation is required before using infarct volume to guide antiplatelet selection.
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.