ArticleAnnals of neurology2023
Predicting Functional Outcome Using 24-Hour Post-Treatment Characteristics: Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in the STRATIS Registry.
Article in Annals of neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osteoporotic fractures prediction in Chinese postmenopausal women: a machine learning-based multi-dimensional approach.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Optimal 24-h NIHSS threshold of ⩽9 predicts 90-day outcomes after posterior circulation thrombectomy: ANGEL-ACT Registry Insights.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Article
- Comparative study of ten machine learning algorithms for short-term forecasting in gas warning systems.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Construction of a machine learning-based prediction model for unfavorable discharge outcomes in patients with ischemic stroke.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
for social media@AliciaCastongu2, @FazalZaidi9, @oozaidat, @Mouhammad_Jumaa
objectiveMachine learning (ML) algorithms have emerged as powerful predictive tools in the field stroke. Here, we examine the predictive accuracy of ML models for predicting functional outcomes using 24-hour post-treatment characteristics in the Systematic Evaluation of Patients Treated With Neurothrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke (STRATIS) Registry.
methodsML models, adaptive boost, random forest (RF), classification and regression trees (CART), C5.0 decision tree (C5.0), support vector machine (SVM), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and logistic regression (LR), and traditional LR models were used to predict 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2). Twenty-four-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was examined as a continuous or dichotomous variable in all models. Model accuracy was assessed using the area under characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsThe 24-hour NIHSS score was a top-predictor of functional outcome in all models. ML models using the continuous 24-hour NIHSS scored showed moderate-to-good predictive performance (range mean AUC: 0.76-0.92); however, RF (AUC: 0.92 ± 0.028) outperformed all ML models, except LASSO (AUC: 0.89 ± 0.023, p = 0.0958). Importantly, RF demonstrated a significantly higher predictive value than LR (AUC: 0.87 ± 0.031, p = 0.048) and traditional LR (AUC: 85 ± 0.06, p = 0.035) when using the 24-hour continuous NIHSS score. Predictive accuracy was similar between the 24-hour NIHSS score dichotomous and continuous ML models.
interpretationIn this substudy, we found similar predictive accuracy for functional outcome when using the 24-hour NIHSS score as a continuous or dichotomous variable in ML models. ML models had moderate-to-good predictive accuracy, with RF outperforming LR models. External validation of these ML models is warranted. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:40-49.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.