| Literature DB >> 33997029 |
Yani Zhao1, Dongliang Yang2, Gang Li1, Peng Zhao1, Xiaorong Luan3, Haiyan Li1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a nomogram model to predict the risk of decreased activities of daily living (ADLs) in patients with moyamoya disease (MMD) following revascularization. The nomogram model was constructed based on data from 292 patients with MMD that were treated at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from January 2018 to June 2019. The prediction model was assessed using a dataset of 119 patients with MMD collected from July 2019 to June 2020. Patients were evaluated with a general information questionnaire and the Mini Mental Status Examination, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Social Support Rating Scale, and ADL Scale. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to build a prediction model incorporating the features selected in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the prediction model were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Predictors contained in the nomogram included gender, age, monthly income, hypertension, and cognitive function and depression scores. The areas under the ROC curves of the training and testing datasets were 0.938 and 0.853, respectively. The prediction model displayed good calibration, and the decision curve analysis showed that it had a wide range of clinical applications. This novel predictive could be conveniently used to predict the risk of the decreased living activity ability in patients with MMD.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33997029 PMCID: PMC8105101 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6624245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Research process flow chart.
General characteristics of the training and testing sets.
| Variables | Training set ( | Testing set ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of cases/( | % | Number of cases | % | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 146 | 50 | 60 | 50.4 |
| Female | 146 | 50 | 59 | 49.6 |
| Age | ||||
| ≤44 | 87 | 29.8 | 35 | 29.4 |
| 45-59 | 140 | 47.9 | 59 | 49.6 |
| ≥60 | 65 | 22.3 | 25 | 21.0 |
| Level of education | ||||
| Never attended school | 36 | 12.3 | 13 | 10.9 |
| Primary or junior high school | 172 | 58.9 | 68 | 57.1 |
| Senior high school and above | 84 | 28.8 | 38 | 32.0 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 283 | 96.9 | 113 | 95.0 |
| Unmarried/divorced/widowed | 9 | 3.1 | 6 | 5.0 |
| Residence | ||||
| City | 93 | 31.8 | 36 | 30.3 |
| Village | 114 | 39.0 | 48 | 40.3 |
| County/town | 85 | 29.1 | 35 | 29.4 |
| Profession | ||||
| Physical labor | 121 | 41.4 | 40 | 33.6 |
| Professional worker | 90 | 30.8 | 47 | 39.5 |
| Retired/unemployed | 19 | 6.5 | 12 | 10.1 |
| Other career | 62 | 21.2 | 20 | 16.8 |
| Payment | ||||
| Worker healthcare | 136 | 46.6 | 54 | 45.4 |
| Resident healthcare | 147 | 50.3 | 49 | 41.2 |
| Other | 9 | 3.1 | 16 | 13.4 |
| Household per capita monthly income | ||||
| ≤1000 RMB | 112 | 38.4 | 45 | 37.8 |
| 1001-3000 RMB | 80 | 27.4 | 30 | 25.2 |
| >3000 RMB | 100 | 34.2 | 44 | 37.0 |
| Lesion type | ||||
| Cerebral hemorrhage | 124 | 42.5 | 52 | 43.7 |
| Cerebral ischemia | 168 | 57.5 | 67 | 56.3 |
| Cerebral infarction | ||||
| Yes | 88 | 30.1 | 34 | 28.6 |
| Diabetes | ||||
| Yes | 34 | 11.6 | 21 | 17.6 |
| Hypertension | ||||
| Yes | 94 | 32.2 | 41 | 34.5 |
| Heart disease | ||||
| Yes | 13 | 4.5 | 12 | 10.1 |
| Time between disease onset and surgery | ||||
| ≤6 weeks | 74 | 25.3 | 31 | 26.1 |
| 6-12 weeks | 115 | 39.4 | 49 | 41.2 |
| >12 weeks | 103 | 35.3 | 39 | 32.8 |
| Operation side | ||||
| Right | 123 | 42.1 | 52 | 43.7 |
| Postoperative complications | ||||
| Yes | 24 | 8.2 | 14 | 11.8 |
| Regular exercise | ||||
| No | 150 | 51.4 | 52 | 43.7 |
| Cognitive function score | 23.75 ± 5.00 | 23.98 ± 4.53 | ||
| Anxiety score | 5.53 ± 3.34 | 5.10 ± 3.01 | ||
| Depression scores | 6.78 ± 3.87 | 6.42 ± 3.46 | ||
| Social support score | 37.58 ± 6.48 | 36.31 ± 6.95 | ||
| Decreased ability in daily life | 178 | 61.0 | 67 | 56.3 |
Figure 2Variable selection using the LASSO regression model. (a) The selection of the best parameter in the LASSO model (lambda) uses a 10-fold cross-validation approach. (b) Seven variables with coefficients not equal to zero were selected through LASSO regression.
Multivariate logistic regression results regarding decreased ADLs in patients with MMD.
| Variable | Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Female gender | 2.24 (1.06, 4.84) | 0.037 |
| Age | 2.19 (1.30, 3.77) | 0.004 |
| Family per capita monthly income | 0.44 (0.26, 0.72) | 0.002 |
| Hypertension | 4.04 (1.74, 9.87) | 0.001 |
| Cognitive function score | 0.61 (0.50, 0.73) | <0.001 |
| Depression score | 1.30 (1.12, 1.51) | 0.001 |
Figure 3Nomogram for predicting declined ADLs.
Values assigned to each variable in the nomogram model.
| Variable | Assignment | Score/risk factor |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | 1 = male | 0 |
| 2 = female | 8 | |
| Age | 0 ≤ 44 | 0 |
| 1 = 45-59 | 8 | |
| 2 ≥ 60 | 16 | |
| Household per capita monthly income | 0 ≤ 1000 RMB | 17 |
| 1 = 1001-3000 RMB | 8 | |
| 2 ≥ 3000 RMB | 0 | |
| Hypertension | 1 = no | 0 |
| 2 = yes | 14 | |
| Cognitive function score | 10 | 100 |
| 20 | 50 | |
| 30 | 0 | |
| Depression score | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 27 | |
| 20 | 54 | |
| Total score | 35 | Risk of ADL decline = 0.1 |
| 57 | Risk of ADL decline = 0.5 | |
| 66 | Risk of ADL decline = 0.7 |
Figure 4Establishment and validation of the prediction model. (a) The prediction model was calibrated in the training dataset. (b) The prediction model in the validation set of the calibration diagram. Note: the x-axis represents the prediction risk of ADL function decline, the y-axis represents the actual risk of ADL function decline, the diagonal dashed line represents the ideal prediction effect of the theoretical model, and the solid line represents the performance of the nomogram. A closer diagonal dashed line indicates a stronger prediction effect.
Figure 5ROC curves of the predictive model. (a) Training dataset model. (b) Testing dataset model.
Figure 6Decision curve of the prediction model.