Abstract 2597: Centralized and Study-specific Phenotyping in a Large-scale Stroke Genetics Study: An Analysis from the NINDS Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN)

Abstract

Background: The Stroke Genetics Network (SiGN) funded by the NINDS aims to identify genetic risk factors in ischemic stroke using whole-genome association studies (GWAS). High quality phenotyping is crucial to successful application of GWAS. As a heterogenous disorder, stroke poses specific challenges. The Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) classification is a broadly used, but its validity is challenged especially when performed by multiple investigators with differing interpretations of the system. The Causative Classification System for Ischemic Stroke (CCS) system is a new, web-based, and computerized algorithm that integrates clinical, diagnostic, and etiologic stroke characteristics in an evidence-based manner ( ccs.mgh.harvard.edu ) to generate subtypes. Methods: In planning the SiGN proposal, a sample of 20 coded charts were collected from a subset of participating studies to assess feasibility of central adjudication and comparability to study-specific TOAST. Two central adjudicators reviewed all records and generated TOAST and CCS subtypes. These were compared to study-specific TOAST subtype and the CCS phenotype generated for SiGN by local trained adjudicators. CCS data is now available for 7134 included cases using both a 5 and a 7 category system as defined in the table . Results: All 4 phenotypes were available for 115 ischemic stroke cases from 6 studies in SiGN. Basic demographics were 54% women, 63% white, and median age between 65-74. Table 1 provides the agreement between the various subtypes. Table 2 describes the types of disagreement. Conclusions: Central adjudication with only two adjudicators and curated medical records yielded more consistent subtyping independent of phenotyping system. The agreement for TOAST was higher than published rates by independent groups (∼0.50). In contrast, the agreement for CCS was lower than previously published (0.85-0.95). Site adjudicators' familiarity with TOAST and inexperience with CCS may contribute. Although CCS is an automated algorithm and has a number of user friendly features, our findings suggest that formal training and certification process before starting to use CCS may be worthwhile to achieve optimal benefit from the system.