Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35659246›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

Machine learning methods for functional recovery prediction and prognosis in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review.

Silvia Campagnini, Chiara Arienti, Michele Patrini, Piergiuseppe Liuzzi, Andrea Mannini, Maria Chiara Carrozza

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Silvia CampagniniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Via di Scandicci 269, 50143, Firenze, Italy.
Chiara ArientiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Via di Scandicci 269, 50143, Firenze, Italy.
Michele PatriniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Via di Scandicci 269, 50143, Firenze, Italy.
Piergiuseppe LiuzziIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Via di Scandicci 269, 50143, Firenze, Italy.
Andrea ManniniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Via di Scandicci 269, 50143, Firenze, Italy. amannini@dongnocchi.it.ORCID 0000-0003-0760-052X
Maria Chiara CarrozzaScuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 34, 56025, Pontedera, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRehabilitation medicine is facing a new development phase thanks to a recent wave of rigorous clinical trials aimed at improving the scientific evidence of protocols. This phenomenon, combined with new trends in personalised medical therapies, is expected to change clinical practice dramatically. The emerging field of Rehabilomics is only possible if methodologies are based on biomedical data collection and analysis. In this framework, the objective of this work is to develop a systematic review of machine learning algorithms as solutions to predict motor functional recovery of post-stroke patients after treatment.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of five electronic databases using the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) format. We extracted health conditions, population characteristics, outcome assessed, the method for feature extraction and selection, the algorithm used, and the validation approach. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). A qualitative description of the characteristics of the included studies as well as a narrative data synthesis was performed.

resultsA total of 19 primary studies were included. The predictors most frequently used belonged to the areas of demographic characteristics and stroke assessment through clinical examination. Regarding the methods, linear and logistic regressions were the most frequently used and cross-validation was the preferred validation approach.

conclusionsWe identified several methodological limitations: small sample sizes, a limited number of external validation approaches, and high heterogeneity among input and output variables. Although these elements prevented a quantitative comparison across models, we defined the most frequently used models given a specific outcome, providing useful indications for the application of more complex machine learning algorithms in rehabilitation medicine.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationBiasHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRecovery of FunctionAutomated pattern recognitionClinicalEfficacy treatmentMachine learningPrognosisRegression analysisRehabilitationRehabilitation outcomeStroke

Identifiers

PMID35659246
PMCPMC9166382

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.