ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Machine learning in a real-world PFO study: analysis of data from multi-centers in China.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of syncope recurrence after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in neurocardiology: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- The integration and innovative practice of intelligent AI and local opera in college teaching.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Acute Ischemic Stroke Subtypes According to Toast Classification: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Integrated assessment of contrast-enhanced TCD and TTE for noninvasive detection of patent foramen ovale under resting and Valsalva conditions.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe association of patent foreman ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic stroke has been studied for years. Although device closure overall decreases the risk for recurrent stroke, treatment effects varied across different studies. In this study, we aimed to detect sub-clusters in post-closure PFO patients and identify potential predictors for adverse outcomes.
methodsWe analyzed patients with embolic stroke of undetermined sources and PFO from 7 centers in China. Machine learning and Cox regression analysis were used.
resultsUsing unsupervised hierarchical clustering on principal components, two main clusters were identified and a total of 196 patients were included. The average age was 42.7 (12.37) years and 64.80% (127/196) were female. During a median follow-up of 739 days, 12 (6.9%) adverse events happened, including 6 (3.45%) recurrent stroke, 5 (2.87%) transient ischemic attack (TIA) and one death (0.6%). Compared to cluster 1 (n = 77, 39.20%), patients in cluster 2 (n = 119, 60.71%) were more likely to be male, had higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure, higher body mass index, lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased proportion of presence of atrial septal aneurysm. Using random forest survival (RFS) analysis, eight top ranking features were selected and used for prediction model construction. As a result, the RFS model outperformed the traditional Cox regression model (C-index: 0.87 vs. 0.54).
conclusionsThere were 2 main clusters in post-closure PFO patients. Traditional cardiovascular profiles remain top ranking predictors for future recurrence of stroke or TIA. However, whether maximizing the management of these factors would provide extra benefits warrants further investigations.
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.