PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Aman Bhardwaj
AU  - MV Padma Srivastava
AU  - Pulikottil Wilson Vinny
AU  - Amit Mehndiratta
AU  - Venugopalan Y Vishnu
AU  - Rahul Garg
TI  - Machine Learning Based Reanalysis of Clinical Scores for Distinguishing Between Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke in Low Resource Setting
AID  - 10.1101/2022.03.03.22271885
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.03.03.22271885
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/07/2022.03.03.22271885.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/07/2022.03.03.22271885.full
AB  - BACKGROUND Identification of stroke and classifying them as ischemic and hemorrhagic type using clinical scores alone faces two unaddressed issues. One pertains to over-estimation of performance of scores and the other involves class imbalance nature of stroke data leading to biased accuracy. We conducted a quantitative comparison of existing scores, after correcting them for the above-stated issues. We explored the utility of Machine Learning theory to address overestimation of performance and class imbalance inherent in these clinical scores.METHODS We included validation studies of Siriraj (SS), Guys Hospital/Allen (GHS/AS), Greek (GS), and Besson (BS) Scores for stroke classification, from 2001-2021, identified from systematic search on PubMed, ERIC, ScienceDirect, and IEEE-Xplore. From included studies we extracted the reported cross tabulation to identify the listed issues. Further, we mitigated them while recalculating all the performance metrics for a comparative analysis of the performance of SS, GHS/AS, GS, and BS.RESULTS A total of 21 studies were included. Our calculated sensitivity range (IS-diagnosis) for SS is 40-90% (median 70%[IQR:57-73%], aggregate 71%[SD:15%]) as against reported 43-97% (78%[IQR:65-88%]), for GHS/AS 35-93% (64%[IQR:53-71%], 64%[SD:17%]) against 35-94% (73%[IQR:62-88%]), and for GS 60-74% (64%[IQR:62-69%], 69%[SD:7%]) against 74-94% (89%[IQR:81-92%]). Calculated sensitivity (HS-diagnosis), for SS, GHS/AS, and GS respectively, are 34-86% (59%[IQR:50-79%], 61%[SD:17%]), 20-73% (46%[IQR:34-64%], 44%[SD:17%]), and 11-80% (43%[IQR:27-62%], 51%[SD:35%]) against reported 50-95% (71%[IQR:64-82%]), 33-93% (63%[IQR:39-73%]), and 41-80% (78%[IQR:59-79%]). Calculated accuracy ranges, are 37-86% (67%[IQR:56-75%], 68%[SD:13%]), 40-87% (58%[IQR:47-61%], 59%[SD:14%]), and 38-76% (51%[IQR:45-63%], 61%[SD:19%]) while the weighted accuracy ranges are 37-85% (64%[IQR:54-73%], 66%[SD:12%]), 43-80% (53%[IQR:47-62%], 54%[SD:13%]), and 38-77% (51%[IQR:44-64%], 60%[SD:20%]). Only one study evaluated BS.CONCLUSION Quantitative comparison of existing scores indicated significantly lower ranges of performance metrics as compared to the ones reported by the studies. We conclude that published clinical scores for stroke classification over-estimate performance. We recommend inclusion of equivocal predictions while calculating performance metrics for such analysis. Further, the high variability in performance of clinical scores in stroke identification and classification could be improved upon by creating a global data-pool with statistically important attributes. Scores based on Machine Learning from such globally pooled data may perform better and generalise at scale.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript