Introducing the Futile Recanalization Prediction Score (FRPS): A Novel Approach to Predict and Mitigate Ineffective Recanalization after Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.

IF 3.2 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurology International Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.3390/neurolint16030045
Helen Shen, Bella B Huasen, Murray C Killingsworth, Sonu M M Bhaskar
{"title":"Introducing the Futile Recanalization Prediction Score (FRPS): A Novel Approach to Predict and Mitigate Ineffective Recanalization after Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.","authors":"Helen Shen, Bella B Huasen, Murray C Killingsworth, Sonu M M Bhaskar","doi":"10.3390/neurolint16030045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective</i>: This study aims to develop and validate the Futile Recanalization Prediction Score (FRPS), a novel tool designed to predict the severity risk of FR and aid in pre- and post-EVT risk assessments. <i>Methods</i>: The FRPS was developed using a rigorous process involving the selection of predictor variables based on clinical relevance and potential impact. Initial equations were derived from previous meta-analyses and refined using various statistical techniques. We employed machine learning algorithms, specifically random forest regression, to capture nonlinear relationships and enhance model performance. Cross-validation with five folds was used to assess generalizability and model fit. <i>Results:</i> The final FRPS model included variables such as age, sex, atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), hyperlipidemia, cognitive impairment, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), onset-to-puncture time, sICH, and NIHSS score. The random forest model achieved a mean R-squared value of approximately 0.992. Severity ranges for FRPS scores were defined as mild (FRPS < 66), moderate (FRPS 66-80), and severe (FRPS > 80). <i>Conclusions</i>: The FRPS provides valuable insights for treatment planning and patient management by predicting the severity risk of FR. This tool may improve the identification of candidates most likely to benefit from EVT and enhance prognostic accuracy post-EVT. Further clinical validation in diverse settings is warranted to assess its effectiveness and reliability.</p>","PeriodicalId":19130,"journal":{"name":"Neurology International","volume":"16 3","pages":"605-619"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11206671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint16030045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to develop and validate the Futile Recanalization Prediction Score (FRPS), a novel tool designed to predict the severity risk of FR and aid in pre- and post-EVT risk assessments. Methods: The FRPS was developed using a rigorous process involving the selection of predictor variables based on clinical relevance and potential impact. Initial equations were derived from previous meta-analyses and refined using various statistical techniques. We employed machine learning algorithms, specifically random forest regression, to capture nonlinear relationships and enhance model performance. Cross-validation with five folds was used to assess generalizability and model fit. Results: The final FRPS model included variables such as age, sex, atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), hyperlipidemia, cognitive impairment, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), onset-to-puncture time, sICH, and NIHSS score. The random forest model achieved a mean R-squared value of approximately 0.992. Severity ranges for FRPS scores were defined as mild (FRPS < 66), moderate (FRPS 66-80), and severe (FRPS > 80). Conclusions: The FRPS provides valuable insights for treatment planning and patient management by predicting the severity risk of FR. This tool may improve the identification of candidates most likely to benefit from EVT and enhance prognostic accuracy post-EVT. Further clinical validation in diverse settings is warranted to assess its effectiveness and reliability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
引入无效再狭窄预测评分(FRPS):预测和缓解急性缺血性脑卒中血管内治疗后无效再通的新方法。
研究目的本研究旨在开发和验证 "徒劳性再狭窄预测评分"(FRPS),这是一种新型工具,旨在预测徒劳性再狭窄的严重风险,并帮助进行 EVT 前后的风险评估。方法:FRPS 的开发采用了严格的流程,包括根据临床相关性和潜在影响选择预测变量。最初的方程来自于之前的荟萃分析,并使用各种统计技术进行了改进。我们采用了机器学习算法,特别是随机森林回归,以捕捉非线性关系并提高模型性能。我们使用了五次交叉验证来评估可推广性和模型拟合度。结果:最终的 FRPS 模型包括年龄、性别、心房颤动 (AF)、高血压 (HTN)、糖尿病 (DM)、高脂血症、认知障碍、卒中前改良 Rankin 量表 (mRS)、收缩压 (SBP)、发病至穿刺时间、sICH 和 NIHSS 评分等变量。随机森林模型的平均 R 方值约为 0.992。FRPS 评分的严重程度范围被定义为轻度(FRPS < 66)、中度(FRPS 66-80)和重度(FRPS > 80)。结论FRPS 通过预测 FR 的严重风险,为治疗计划和患者管理提供了有价值的见解。该工具可以更好地识别最有可能从 EVT 中获益的患者,并提高 EVT 后预后的准确性。有必要在不同环境中进一步进行临床验证,以评估其有效性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology International
Neurology International CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
69
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Bridging the Gap: Improving Acute Ischemic Stroke Outcomes with Intravenous Thrombolysis Prior to Mechanical Thrombectomy. UBL3 Interacts with PolyQ-Expanded Huntingtin Fragments and Modifies Their Intracellular Sorting. Redefining Infarction Size for Small-Vessel Occlusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Retrospective Case-Control Study. Syndrome Sinistre: Left Brachiocephalic Vein Compression and its Neurological Manifestations. A Retrospective Study of Lateral Antebrachial Cutaneous Nerve Neuropathy: Electrodiagnostic Findings and Etiologies in 49 Cases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1