2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Perinatal Arterial Ischemic Stroke in Term Neonates

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This diagnostic study assesses the accuracy and internal validity of a prediction model developed to estimate the risk of perinatal arterial ischemic stroke in term neonates using clinical pregnancy, delivery, and fetal factors.

          Key Points

          Question

          Can common clinical factors be used to develop and internally validate a risk prediction model for perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) in term neonates?

          Findings

          In this diagnostic study of 2571 term neonates, a prediction model for risk of PAIS that included 1924 neonates and 9 clinical factors (maternal age, tobacco exposure, recreational drug exposure, preeclampsia, chorioamnionitis, intrapartum maternal fever, emergency cesarean delivery, low 5-minute Apgar score, and male sex) had good discrimination and model fit between case and control individuals.

          Meaning

          Prediction models for PAIS may help identify neonates at risk of PAIS who should be screened for early diagnosis and intervention.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) is a focal brain injury in term neonates that is identified postnatally but is presumed to occur near the time of birth. Many pregnancy, delivery, and fetal factors have been associated with PAIS, but early risk detection is lacking; thus, targeted treatment and prevention efforts are currently limited.

          Objective

          To develop and validate a diagnostic risk prediction model that uses common clinical factors to predict the probability of PAIS in a term neonate.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          In this diagnostic study, a prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression with registry-based case data collected between January 2003, and March 2020, from the Alberta Perinatal Stroke Project, Canadian Cerebral Palsy Registry, International Pediatric Stroke Study, and Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study. Criteria for inclusion were term birth and no underlying medical conditions associated with stroke diagnosis. Records with more than 20% missing data were excluded. Variable selection was based on peer-reviewed literature. Data were analyzed in September 2021.

          Exposures

          Clinical pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal factors associated with PAIS as common data elements across the 4 registries.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was the discriminative accuracy of the model predicting PAIS, measured by the concordance statistic (C statistic).

          Results

          Of 2571 term neonates in the initial analysis (527 [20%] case and 2044 [80%] control individuals; gestational age range, 37-42 weeks), 1389 (54%) were male, with a greater proportion of males among cases compared with controls (318 [60%] vs 1071 [52%]). The final model was developed using 1924 neonates, including 321 cases (17%) and 1603 controls (83%), and 9 clinical factors associated with risk of PAIS in term neonates: maternal age, tobacco exposure, recreational drug exposure, preeclampsia, chorioamnionitis, intrapartum maternal fever, emergency cesarean delivery, low 5-minute Apgar score, and male sex. The model demonstrated good discrimination between cases and controls (C statistic, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76) and good model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .20). Internal validation techniques yielded similar C statistics (0.73 [95% CI, 0.69-0.77] with bootstrap resampling, 10-fold cross-validated area under the curve, 0.72 [bootstrap bias–corrected 95% CI, 0.69-0.76]), as did a sensitivity analysis using cases and controls from Alberta, Canada, only (C statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The findings suggest that clinical variables can be used to develop and internally validate a model to predict the risk of PAIS in term neonates, with good predictive performance and strong internal validity. Identifying neonates with a high probability of PAIS who could then be screened for early diagnosis and treatment may be associated with reductions in lifelong morbidity for affected individuals and their families.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study.

          Separate multivariable risk algorithms are commonly used to assess risk of specific atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, ie, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure. The present report presents a single multivariable risk function that predicts risk of developing all CVD and of its constituents. We used Cox proportional-hazards regression to evaluate the risk of developing a first CVD event in 8491 Framingham study participants (mean age, 49 years; 4522 women) who attended a routine examination between 30 and 74 years of age and were free of CVD. Sex-specific multivariable risk functions ("general CVD" algorithms) were derived that incorporated age, total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, treatment for hypertension, smoking, and diabetes status. We assessed the performance of the general CVD algorithms for predicting individual CVD events (coronary heart disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, or heart failure). Over 12 years of follow-up, 1174 participants (456 women) developed a first CVD event. All traditional risk factors evaluated predicted CVD risk (multivariable-adjusted P<0.0001). The general CVD algorithm demonstrated good discrimination (C statistic, 0.763 [men] and 0.793 [women]) and calibration. Simple adjustments to the general CVD risk algorithms allowed estimation of the risks of each CVD component. Two simple risk scores are presented, 1 based on all traditional risk factors and the other based on non-laboratory-based predictors. A sex-specific multivariable risk factor algorithm can be conveniently used to assess general CVD risk and risk of individual CVD events (coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral arterial disease and heart failure). The estimated absolute CVD event rates can be used to quantify risk and to guide preventive care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.

            Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Clinical Prediction Models

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 June 2022
                June 2022
                29 June 2022
                : 5
                : 6
                : e2219203
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pediatrics and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Neurology/Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [4 ]Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, National Health Service Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Department of Neurology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [6 ]Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [7 ]Department of Neonatology, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel
                [8 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
                [9 ]Department of Neonatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                [10 ]Department of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [11 ]Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [12 ]Owerko Centre at the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [13 ]Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [14 ]Department of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [15 ]Department of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [16 ]Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [17 ]Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [18 ]Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [19 ]Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [20 ]Department of Radiology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [21 ]Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [22 ]Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: May 9, 2022.
                Published: June 29, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19203
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Srivastava R et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Ratika Srivastava, MD, Department of Pediatrics and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, 28 Oki Dr NW, Calgary, AB T3B 6A8, Canada ( ratika.srivastava@ 123456ahs.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Srivastava and Kirton had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Srivastava, Dunbar, Shevell, Oskoui, Hill, Kirton.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Srivastava, Dunbar, Shevell, Oskoui, Basu, Rivkin, Shany, de Vries, Dewey, Letourneau, Kirton.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Srivastava, Shevell, Kirton.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Srivastava, Dunbar, Oskoui, Basu, Rivkin, Shany, de Vries, Dewey, Letourneau, Hill, Kirton.
                Statistical analysis: Srivastava, Dunbar, Hill, Kirton.
                Obtained funding: Srivastava, Shevell, Dewey, Letourneau, Hill, Kirton.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Srivastava, Dewey, Letourneau, Hill.
                Supervision: Dunbar, Shevell, Oskoui, de Vries, Hill, Kirton.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Hill reported receiving grants from NoNO Inc to the University of Calgary for the ESCAPE-NEXT trial, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada to the University of Calgary for the TEMPO-2 trial, and Medtronic LLC to the University of Calgary for the ESCAPE-MeVO trial outside the submitted work and reported being a board member for the Canadian Stroke Consortium and for the Canadian Neuroscience Federation (not-for-profit sector). Dr Kirton reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Alberta Innovates, the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Research Foundation, and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by a Stollery Foundation Clinical Research Fellowship (Dr Srivastava) and by Alberta Innovates and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to the Alberta Perinatal Stroke Project and the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi220554
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19203
                9244611
                35767262
                1f8ef97f-bd00-483b-a5bf-66e7af7d8257
                Copyright 2022 Srivastava R et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 8 March 2022
                : 9 May 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Neurology

                Comments

                Comment on this article