4.5 Article

Cognitive Impairment after Mild Stroke: Development and Validation of the SIGNAL2 Risk Score

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 1169-1177

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-150736

关键词

Cognitive impairment; ischemic stroke; magnetic resonance imaging; prognosis; risk score

资金

  1. National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Post stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI), an important complication of strokes, has numerous risk factors. A scale adequately classifying risk of cognitive impairment 3-6 months after mild stroke will be useful for clinicians. Objective: To develop a risk score based on clinical and neuroimaging variables that will be useful in identifying mild ischemic stroke patients at high risk for PSCI. Methods: The risk score development cohort comprised of a retrospective dataset of 209 mild stroke patients with MRI confirmed infarcts, without pre-stroke cognitive impairment, and evaluated within 6 months post-stroke for PSCI. Logistic regression identified factors predictive of PSCI and a risk score was developed based on regression coefficients. The risk score was checked for stability using 10-fold cross-validation and validated in an independent prospective cohort of 185 ischemic mild stroke patients. Results: Within 6 months post-stroke, 37.32% developed PSCI in the retrospective dataset. A 15-point risk score based on age, education, acute cortical infarcts, white matter hyperintensity, chronic lacunes, global cortical atrophy, and intracranial large vessel stenosis was highly predictive of PSCI with an AUC of 0.829. 10.11% with low scores, 52.69% with moderate scores, and 74.07% with high scores developed PSCI. In the prospective validation cohort, the model had an AUC of 0.776, and exhibited similar accuracy and stability statistics at both 6 and 12 months. Conclusion: The seven item risk score adequately identified mild stroke patients who are at an increased risk of developing PSCI.

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

4.5
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