Deans' stroke musings: Accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes

This is so easy to explain why prediction is so fucking bad. NO OBJECTIVE DAMAGE DIAGNOSIS, NO EXACT STROKE PROTOCOLS TO FIX SUCH DAMAGE. All your doctors are doing is guessing like this:

Mercury astronaut Scott Carpenter suffers stroke; full recovery expected

Oops!

Scott Carpenter - Obituary

Accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes

Gustavo Saposnik, Robert Cote, , Stavroula Raptis, , , , Larry B. Goldstein

First published June 28, 2013, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e31829d874e

Full PDF

Citation

Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads

452

Add to Cart ($39)

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Abstract

Objective: We compared the accuracy of clinicians and a risk score (iScore) to predict observed outcomes following an acute ischemic stroke.

Methods: The JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) study assigned 111 clinicians with expertise in acute stroke care to predict the probability of outcomes of 5 ischemic stroke case scenarios. Cases (n = 1,415) were selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical presentations from a pool of more than 12,000 stroke patients admitted to 12 stroke centers. The primary outcome was prediction of death or disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≥3) at discharge within the 95% confidence interval (CI) of observed outcomes. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and death or institutionalization at discharge.

Results: Clinicians made 1,661 predictions with overall accuracy of 16.9% for death or disability at discharge, 46.9% for 30-day mortality, and 33.1% for death or institutionalization at discharge. In contrast, 90% of the iScore-based estimates were within the 95% CI of observed outcomes. Nearly half (n = 53 of 111; 48%) of participants were unable to accurately predict the probability of the primary outcome in any of the 5 rated cases. Less than 1% (n = 1) provided accurate predictions in 4 of the 5 cases and none accurately predicted all 5 case outcomes. In multivariable analyses, the presence of patient characteristics associated with poor outcomes (mRS ≥3 or death) in previous studies (older age, high NIH Stroke Scale score, and nonlacunar subtype) were associated with more accurate clinician predictions of death at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% CI 1.57–3.67) and with a trend for more accurate predictions of death or disability at discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.99–3.46).

Conclusions: Clinicians with expertise in stroke performed poorly compared to a validated tool in predicting the outcomes of patients with an acute ischemic stroke. Use of the risk stroke outcome tool may be superior for decision-making following an acute ischemic stroke.