Predicting models for arm impairment: External validation of the Scandinavian models and identification of new predictors in post-acute stroke settings.

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke arm impairment at rehabilitation admission as predictor of discharge arm impairment was consistently reported as extremely useful. Several models for acute prediction exist (e.g. the Scandinavian), though lacking external validation and larger time-window admission assessments. OBJECTIVES: (1) use the 33 Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) individual items to predict total FMA-UE score at discharge of patients with ischemic stroke admitted to rehabilitation within 90 days post-injury, (2) use eight individual items (seven from the Scandinavian study plus the top predictor item from objective 1) to predict mild impairment (FMA-UE≥48) at discharge and (3) adjust the top three models from objective 2 with known confounders. METHODS: This was an observational study including 287 patients (from eight settings) admitted to rehabilitation (2009-2020). We applied regression models to candidate predictors, reporting adjusted R2, odds ratios and ROC-AUC using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: We achieved good predictive power for the eight item-level models (AUC: 0.70-0.82) and for the three adjusted models (AUC: 0.85-0.88). We identified finger mass flexion as new item-level top predictor (AUC:0.88) and time to admission (OR = 0.9(0.9;1.0)) as only common significant confounder. CONCLUSION: Scandinavian item-level predictors are valid in a different context, finger mass flexion outperformed known predictors, days-to-admission predict discharge mild arm impairment.

Toward Personalized Web-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation for Patients With Ischemic Stroke: Elo Rating Approach.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a worldwide cause of disability; 40% of stroke survivors sustain cognitive impairments, most of them following inpatient rehabilitation at specialized clinical centers. Web-based cognitive rehabilitation tasks are extensively used in clinical settings. The impact of task execution depends on the ratio between the skills of the treated patient and the challenges imposed by the task itself. Thus, treatment personalization requires a trade-off between patients' skills and task difficulties, which is still an open issue. In this study, we propose Elo ratings to support clinicians in tasks assignations and representing patients' skills to optimize rehabilitation outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to stratify patients with ischemic stroke at an early stage of rehabilitation into three levels according to their Elo rating; to show the relationships between the Elo rating levels, task difficulty levels, and rehabilitation outcomes; and to determine if the Elo rating obtained at early stages of rehabilitation is a significant predictor of rehabilitation outcomes. METHODS: The PlayerRatings R library was used to obtain the Elo rating for each patient. Working memory was assessed using the DIGITS subtest of the Barcelona test, and the Rey Auditory Verbal Memory Test (RAVLT) was used to assess verbal memory. Three subtests of RAVLT were used: RAVLT learning (RAVLT075), free-recall memory (RAVLT015), and recognition (RAVLT015R). Memory predictors were identified using forward stepwise selection to add covariates to the models, which were evaluated by assessing discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for logistic regressions and adjusted R2 for linear regressions. RESULTS: Three Elo levels (low, middle, and high) with the same number of patients (n=96) in each Elo group were obtained using the 50 initial task executions (from a total of 38,177) for N=288 adult patients consecutively admitted for inpatient rehabilitation in a clinical setting. The mid-Elo level showed the highest proportions of patients that improved in all four memory items: 56% (54/96) of them improved in DIGITS, 67% (64/96) in RAVLT075, 58% (56/96) in RAVLT015, and 53% (51/96) in RAVLT015R (P<.001). The proportions of patients from the mid-Elo level that performed tasks at difficulty levels 1, 2, and 3 were 32.1% (3997/12,449), 31.% (3997/12,449), and 36.9% (4595/12,449), respectively (P<.001), showing the highest match between skills (represented by Elo level) and task difficulties, considering the set of 38,177 task executions. Elo ratings were significant predictors in three of the four models and quasi-significant in the fourth. When predicting RAVLT075 and DIGITS at discharge, we obtained R2=0.54 and 0.43, respectively; meanwhile, we obtained AUC=0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.82) and AUC=0.81 (95% CI 0.72-0.89) in RAVLT075 and DIGITS improvement predictions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Elo ratings can support clinicians in early rehabilitation stages in identifying cognitive profiles to be used for assigning task difficulty levels.