ArticlePloS one2018
Towards phenotyping stroke: Leveraging data from a large-scale epidemiological study to detect stroke diagnosis.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning prediction of motor function in chronic stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Pooled it
- A probabilistic approach for building disease phenotypes across electronic health records.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in stroke risk assessment and management via retinal imaging.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025Review
- Use of machine learning techniques for identifying ischemic stroke instead of the rule-based methods: a nationwide population-based study.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Identifying predictors of stroke in young adults: a machine learning analysis of sex-specific risk factors.Frontiers in stroke · 2024Article
- Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience towards the Diagnosis of Neurological Disorders-A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Machine Learning Approach to Support Urgent Stroke Triage Using Administrative Data and Social Determinants of Health at Hospital Presentation: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Machine learning approaches for electronic health records phenotyping: a methodical review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Deep-Learning-Based Stroke Screening Using Skeleton Data from Neurological Examination Videos.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Atrial fibrillation detection in primary care during blood pressure measurements and using a smartphone cardiac monitor.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning for Identifying Incident Stroke From Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Electronic Medical Record-Based Case Phenotyping for the Charlson Conditions: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Development and Evaluation of an Automated Approach to Detect Weight Abnormalities in Pediatric Weight Charts.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021Article
- Machine Learning in Action: Stroke Diagnosis and Outcome Prediction.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Comparative analysis, applications, and interpretation of electronic health record-based stroke phenotyping methods.BioData mining · 2020Article
- Detecting time-evolving phenotypic topics via tensor factorization on electronic health records: Cardiovascular disease case study.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objective1) To develop a machine learning approach for detecting stroke cases and subtypes from hospitalization data, 2) to assess algorithm performance and predictors on real-world data collected by a large-scale epidemiology study in the US; and 3) to identify directions for future development of high-precision stroke phenotypic signatures. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe utilized 8,131 hospitalization events (ICD-9 codes 430-438) collected from the Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Stroke Study in 2005 and 2010. Detailed information from patients' medical records was abstracted for each event by trained research nurses. By analyzing the broad list of demographic and clinical variables, the machine learning algorithms predicted whether an event was a stroke case and, if so, the stroke subtype. The performance was validated on gold-standard labels adjudicated by stroke physicians, and results were compared with stroke classifications based on ICD-9 discharge codes, as well as labels determined by study nurses.
resultsThe best performing machine learning algorithm achieved a performance of 88.57%/93.81%/92.80%/93.30%/89.84%/98.01% (accuracy/precision/recall/F-measure/area under ROC curve/area under precision-recall curve) on stroke case detection. For detecting stroke subtypes, the algorithm yielded an overall accuracy of 87.39% and greater than 85% precision on individual subtypes. The machine learning algorithms significantly outperformed the ICD-9 method on all measures (P value<0.001). Their performance was comparable to that of study nurses, with better tradeoff between precision and recall. The feature selection uncovered a subset of predictive variables that could facilitate future development of effective stroke phenotyping algorithms. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsBy analyzing a broad array of patient data, the machine learning technologies held promise for improving detection of stroke diagnosis, thus unlocking high statistical power for subsequent genetic and genomic studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.