Measurable Differences between Sequential and Parallel Diagnostic Decision Processes for Determining Stroke Subtype: A Representation of Interacting Pathologies

Summary

Stroke diagnosis depends on causal subtype. The accepted classification procedure is a succession of diagnostic tests administered in an order based on prior reported frequencies of the subtypes. The first positive test result completely determines diagnosis. An alternative approach tests multiple concomitant diagnostic hypotheses in parallel. This method permits multiple simultaneous pathologies in the patient. These two diagnostic procedures can be compared by novel numeric criteria presented here.

Thrombosis, a type of ischemic stroke, results from interaction between endothelium, blood flow and blood components. We tested for ischemic stroke on thirty patients using both methods. For each patient the procedure produced an assessment of severity as an ordered set of three numbers in the interval [0, 1]. We measured the difference in diagnosis between the sequential and parallel diagnostic algorithms. The computations reveal systematic differences: The sequential procedure tends to under-diagnose and excludes any measure of interaction between pathologic elements.

Keywords

Stroke subtype - diagnosis - pathogenesis - cause - interaction - ischemic stroke

• References

• 1 Albers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, Sacco RL, Teal P. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke. Chest 2001; 119: 301S
• 2 Caplan LR. Stroke. A Clinical Approach. Third Edition. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heineman; 2000. 73 1-51.
• 3 Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 1998: 1-234.
• 4 Helgason CM, Jobe TH. The fuzzy cube and causal efficacy: representation of concomitant mechanisms in stroke. Neural Networks 1998; 11: 549-55.
• 5 Chamberlain TC. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science 1890; 15: 1092.
• 6 Kosko B. Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems. A Dynamical Approach to Machine Intelligence. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1992: 274-5.
• 7 Kosko B, Fuzziness VS. Probability. Int J General Systems 1990; 17: 216.
• 8 Reker DM, Hamilton BB, Duncan PW, Yeh JShu Chuan, Rosen A. Stroke: Who’s counting what?. J Rehabil Res Dev 2001; 38: 1-11.
• 9 Helgason CM, Jobe TH. Statistical versus fuzzy measures of variable interaction in patients with ischemic stroke. Neuroepidemiology 2001; 20: 77-85.