Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36158960›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022

Pre-thrombectomy prognostic prediction of large-vessel ischemic stroke using machine learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Minyan Zeng, Lauren Oakden-Rayner, Alix Bird, Luke Smith, Zimu Wu, Rebecca Scroop, Timothy Kleinig, Jim Jannes, Mark Jenkinson, Lyle J Palmer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Minyan ZengAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lauren Oakden-RaynerAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Alix BirdAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Luke SmithAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Zimu WuSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rebecca ScroopDepartment of Radiology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Timothy KleinigFaculty Health and Medical Science, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jim JannesFaculty Health and Medical Science, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Mark JenkinsonAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lyle J PalmerAustralian Institute for Machine Learning, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Machine learning (ML) methods are being increasingly applied to prognostic prediction for stroke patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) treated with endovascular thrombectomy. This systematic review aims to summarize ML-based pre-thrombectomy prognostic models for LVO stroke and identify key research gaps. Methods: Literature searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Meta-analyses of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of ML models were conducted to synthesize model performance. Results: Sixteen studies describing 19 models were eligible. The predicted outcomes include functional outcome at 90 days, successful reperfusion, and hemorrhagic transformation. Functional outcome was analyzed by 10 conventional ML models (pooled AUC=0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.85, AUC range: 0.68-0.93) and four deep learning (DL) models (pooled AUC=0.75, 95% CI: 0.70-0.81, AUC range: 0.71-0.81). Successful reperfusion was analyzed by three conventional ML models (pooled AUC=0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.88, AUC range: 0.55-0.88) and one DL model (AUC=0.65, 95% CI: 0.62-0.68). Conclusions: Conventional ML and DL models have shown variable performance in predicting post-treatment outcomes of LVO without generally demonstrating superiority compared to existing prognostic scores. Most models were developed using small datasets, lacked solid external validation, and at high risk of potential bias. There is considerable scope to improve study design and model performance. The application of ML and DL methods to improve the prediction of prognosis in LVO stroke, while promising, remains nascent. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021266524, identifier CRD42021266524.

Indexed as

deep learningendovascular thrombectomyischemic strokelarge vessel occlusionmachine learningprognostic prediction

Identifiers

PMID36158960
PMCPMC9495610

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.