4.7 Article

Validating Prediction Tools for Autoimmune Encephalitis in Adult Taiwanese Patients: A Retrospective Study

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11071906

关键词

autoimmune encephalitis; antibody prevalence in epilepsy score; response to immunotherapy in epilepsy score; anti-NMDAR encephalitis one-year functional status score; validation; autoimmune diseases of the nervous system; anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed the application and effectiveness of prediction tools for autoimmune encephalitis (AE) patients in Taiwan. Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy (APE) score, Response to Immunotherapy in Epilepsy (RITE) score, and anti-NMDAR Encephalitis One Year Functional Status (NEOS) score were used. The AUC values for APE and RITE scores were suboptimal, while NEOS score performed better on long-term follow-up.
Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is a neurological emergency. We aimed to analyze the application and effectiveness of the currently available prediction tools for AE patients in Taiwan. We retrospectively collected 27 AE patients between January 2008 and December 2019. Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy (APE) score, Response to Immunotherapy in Epilepsy (RITE) score, and anti-NMDAR Encephalitis One Year Functional Status (NEOS) score were applied to validate their usability. Based on the defined cutoff values, the sensitivity and specificity of each score were calculated. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) were generated for each scoring system. The AUC value of APE was 0.571. The AUC value of RITE was 0.550. The AUC values for the NEOS score at discharge and long-term follow-up were 0.645 and 0.796, respectively. The performance of APE and RITE scores was suboptimal in the Taiwanese cohort, probably due to the limitations of the small sample size and single ethnicity. On the other hand, the NEOS score performed better on long-term follow-up than at discharge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据