Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35864139›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Machine learning prediction of hematoma expansion in acute intracerebral hemorrhage.

Satoru Tanioka, Tetsushi Yago, Katsuhiro Tanaka, Fujimaro Ishida, Tomoyuki Kishimoto, Kazuhiko Tsuda, Munenari Ikezawa, Tomohiro Araki, Yoichi Miura, Hidenori Suzuki

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Hematoma expansion prediction based on SMOTE and XGBoost algorithm.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Satoru TaniokaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mie Chuo Medical Center, 2158-5 Myojin-cho, Hisai, Tsu, Mie, 514-1101, Japan. satoru.tanioka.ns@icloud.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4678-6163
Tetsushi YagoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mie Chuo Medical Center, 2158-5 Myojin-cho, Hisai, Tsu, Mie, 514-1101, Japan.
Katsuhiro TanakaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mie Chuo Medical Center, 2158-5 Myojin-cho, Hisai, Tsu, Mie, 514-1101, Japan.
Fujimaro IshidaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mie Chuo Medical Center, 2158-5 Myojin-cho, Hisai, Tsu, Mie, 514-1101, Japan.
Tomoyuki KishimotoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, 102 Kobo, Matsusaka, Mie, 515-8566, Japan.
Kazuhiko TsudaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Matsusaka Chuo General Hospital, 102 Kobo, Matsusaka, Mie, 515-8566, Japan.
Munenari IkezawaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Suzuka Kaisei Hospital, 112-1 Ko-cho, Suzuka, Mie, 513-8505, Japan.
Tomohiro ArakiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Suzuka Kaisei Hospital, 112-1 Ko-cho, Suzuka, Mie, 513-8505, Japan.
Yoichi MiuraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Hidenori SuzukiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To examine whether machine learning (ML) approach can be used to predict hematoma expansion in acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) with accuracy and widespread applicability, we applied ML algorithms to multicenter clinical data and CT findings on admission. Patients with acute ICH from three hospitals (n = 351) and those from another hospital (n = 71) were retrospectively assigned to the development and validation cohorts, respectively. To develop ML predictive models, the k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm, logistic regression, support vector machines (SVMs), random forests, and XGBoost were applied to the patient data in the development cohort. The models were evaluated for their performance on the patient data in the validation cohort, which was compared with previous scoring methods, the BAT, BRAIN, and 9-point scores. The k-NN algorithm achieved the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.790 among all ML models, and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.846, 0.733, and 0.775, respectively. The BRAIN score achieved the highest AUC of 0.676 among all previous scoring methods, which was lower than the k-NN algorithm (p = 0.016). We developed and validated ML predictive models of hematoma expansion in acute ICH. The models demonstrated good predictive ability, showing better performance than the previous scoring methods.

Indexed as

Cerebral HemorrhageHematomaHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID35864139
PMCPMC9304401

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.