Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980906›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Random forest-based prediction of stroke outcome.

Carlos Fernandez-Lozano, Pablo Hervella, Virginia Mato-Abad, Manuel Rodríguez-Yáñez, Sonia Suárez-Garaboa, Iria López-Dequidt, Ana Estany-Gestal, Tomás Sobrino, Francisco Campos, José Castillo and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

12 authors.

Carlos Fernandez-LozanoDepartment of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Faculty of Computer Science, CITIC-Research Center of Information and Communication Technologies, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Pablo HervellaClinical Neurosciences Research Laboratory (LINC), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Virginia Mato-AbadSoftware Engineering Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Faculty of Computer Science, University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña, 15071, A Coruña, Spain.
Manuel Rodríguez-YáñezStroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Hospital Clínico Universitario, Rúa Travesa da Choupana, s/n, 15706Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Sonia Suárez-GaraboaSoftware Engineering Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Faculty of Computer Science, University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña, 15071, A Coruña, Spain.
Iria López-DequidtStroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Hospital Clínico Universitario, Rúa Travesa da Choupana, s/n, 15706Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Ana Estany-GestalUnit of Methodology of the Research, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Tomás SobrinoClinical Neurosciences Research Laboratory (LINC), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Francisco CamposClinical Neurosciences Research Laboratory (LINC), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
José CastilloClinical Neurosciences Research Laboratory (LINC), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Santiago Rodríguez-YáñezSoftware Engineering Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Faculty of Computer Science, University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña, 15071, A Coruña, Spain. santiago.rodriguez@udc.es.
Ramón Iglesias-ReyClinical Neurosciences Research Laboratory (LINC), Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ramon.iglesias.rey@sergas.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We research into the clinical, biochemical and neuroimaging factors associated with the outcome of stroke patients to generate a predictive model using machine learning techniques for prediction of mortality and morbidity 3-months after admission. The dataset consisted of patients with ischemic stroke (IS) and non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) admitted to Stroke Unit of a European Tertiary Hospital prospectively registered. We identified the main variables for machine learning Random Forest (RF), generating a predictive model that can estimate patient mortality/morbidity according to the following groups: (1) IS + ICH, (2) IS, and (3) ICH. A total of 6022 patients were included: 4922 (mean age 71.9 ± 13.8 years) with IS and 1100 (mean age 73.3 ± 13.1 years) with ICH. NIHSS at 24, 48 h and axillary temperature at admission were the most important variables to consider for evolution of patients at 3-months. IS + ICH group was the most stable for mortality prediction [0.904 ± 0.025 of area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC)]. IS group presented similar results, although variability between experiments was slightly higher (0.909 ± 0.032 of AUC). ICH group was the one in which RF had more problems to make adequate predictions (0.9837 vs. 0.7104 of AUC). There were no major differences between IS and IS + ICH groups according to morbidity prediction (0.738 and 0.755 of AUC) but, after checking normality with a Shapiro Wilk test with the null hypothesis that the data follow a normal distribution, it was rejected with W = 0.93546 (p-value < 2.2e-16). Conditions required for a parametric test do not hold, and we performed a paired Wilcoxon Test assuming the null hypothesis that all the groups have the same performance. The null hypothesis was rejected with a value < 2.2e-16, so there are statistical differences between IS and ICH groups. In conclusion, machine learning algorithms RF can be effectively used in stroke patients for long-term outcome prediction of mortality and morbidity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSeverity of Illness IndexAgedCerebral HemorrhageFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHemorrhagic StrokeHospitalizationHumansIschemic StrokeMachine LearningMalePrognosisProspective StudiesROC CurveSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID33980906
PMCPMC8115135

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.