Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36504664›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Machine learning approach for hemorrhagic transformation prediction: Capturing predictors' interaction.

Ahmed F Elsaid, Rasha M Fahmi, Nahed Shehta, Bothina M Ramadan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed F ElsaidDepartment of Public Health and Community Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Rasha M FahmiNeurology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Nahed ShehtaNeurology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Bothina M RamadanNeurology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Zagazig University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Patients with ischemic stroke frequently develop hemorrhagic transformation (HT), which could potentially worsen the prognosis. The objectives of the current study were to determine the incidence and predictors of HT, to evaluate predictor interaction, and to identify the optimal predicting models. Methods: A prospective study included 360 patients with ischemic stroke, of whom 354 successfully continued the study. Patients were subjected to thorough general and neurological examination and T2 diffusion-weighted MRI, at admission and 1 week later to determine the incidence of HT. HT predictors were selected by a filter-based minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR) algorithm independent of model performance. Several machine learning algorithms including multivariable logistic regression classifier (LRC), support vector classifier (SVC), random forest classifier (RFC), gradient boosting classifier (GBC), and multilayer perceptron classifier (MLPC) were optimized for HT prediction in a randomly selected half of the sample (training set) and tested in the other half of the sample (testing set). The model predictive performance was evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) and visualized by observing case distribution relative to the models' predicted three-dimensional (3D) hypothesis spaces within the testing dataset true feature space. The interaction between predictors was investigated using generalized additive modeling (GAM). Results: The incidence of HT in patients with ischemic stroke was 19.8%. Infarction size, cerebral microbleeds (CMB), and the National Institute of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) were identified as the best HT predictors. RFC (AUC: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95) and GBC (AUC: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.95) demonstrated significantly superior performance compared to LRC (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.79-0.91) and MLPC (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.92). SVC (AUC: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.94) outperformed LRC and MLPC but did not reach statistical significance. LRC and MLPC did not show significant differences. The best models' 3D hypothesis spaces demonstrated non-linear decision boundaries suggesting an interaction between predictor variables. GAM analysis demonstrated a linear and non-linear significant interaction between NIHSS and CMB and between NIHSS and infarction size, respectively. Conclusion: Cerebral microbleeds, NIHSS, and infarction size were identified as HT predictors. The best predicting models were RFC and GBC capable of capturing nonlinear interaction between predictors. Predictor interaction suggests a dynamic, rather than, fixed cutoff risk value for any of these predictors.

Indexed as

cerebral microbleedshemorrhagic transformationinfarction sizeischemic strokemachine learningNIHSS

Identifiers

PMID36504664
PMCPMC9731336
OpenAlexW4309905680

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.