Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33804724›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Prediction of Long-Term Stroke Recurrence Using Machine Learning Models.

Vida Abedi, Venkatesh Avula, Durgesh Chaudhary, Shima Shahjouei, Ayesha Khan, Christoph J Griessenauer, Jiang Li, Ramin Zand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Redefining Stroke Care with Artificial Intelligence: Recent Advances.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Vida AbediDepartment of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7689-933X
Venkatesh AvulaDepartment of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5141-1502
Durgesh ChaudharyGeisinger Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Shima ShahjoueiGeisinger Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Ayesha KhanGeisinger Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.
Christoph J GriessenauerGeisinger Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2952-3812
Jiang LiDepartment of Molecular and Functional Genomics, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7006-1285
Ramin ZandGeisinger Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA 17822, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe long-term risk of recurrent ischemic stroke, estimated to be between 17% and 30%, cannot be reliably assessed at an individual level. Our goal was to study whether machine-learning can be trained to predict stroke recurrence and identify key clinical variables and assess whether performance metrics can be optimized.

methodsWe used patient-level data from electronic health records, six interpretable algorithms (Logistic Regression, Extreme Gradient Boosting, Gradient Boosting Machine, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree), four feature selection strategies, five prediction windows, and two sampling strategies to develop 288 models for up to 5-year stroke recurrence prediction. We further identified important clinical features and different optimization strategies.

resultsWe included 2091 ischemic stroke patients. Model area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was stable for prediction windows of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, with the highest score for the 1-year (0.79) and the lowest score for the 5-year prediction window (0.69). A total of 21 (7%) models reached an AUROC above 0.73 while 110 (38%) models reached an AUROC greater than 0.7. Among the 53 features analyzed, age, body mass index, and laboratory-based features (such as high-density lipoprotein, hemoglobin A1c, and creatinine) had the highest overall importance scores. The balance between specificity and sensitivity improved through sampling strategies.

conclusionAll of the selected six algorithms could be trained to predict the long-term stroke recurrence and laboratory-based variables were highly associated with stroke recurrence. The latter could be targeted for personalized interventions. Model performance metrics could be optimized, and models can be implemented in the same healthcare system as intelligent decision support for targeted intervention.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision support systemelectronic health recordexplainable machine learninghealthcareinterpretable machine learningischemic strokemachine learningoutcome predictionrecurrent stroke

Identifiers

PMID33804724
PMCPMC8003970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.