ArticleBiomolecules2023
Application of an Artificial Neural Network to Identify the Factors Influencing Neurorehabilitation Outcomes of Patients with Ischemic Stroke Treated with Thrombolysis.
Article in Biomolecules, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current State of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke: A Literature Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- An Explainable Two-Stage Machine Learning Model for Predicting the Post-Thrombolysis Complications in Stroke Patients: A Multi-Center Study.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- AI Applications in Adult Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review Using AI.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Advances in Drug Design and Development for Human Therapeutics Using Artificial Intelligence-II.Biomolecules · 2023Article
- Virtual Art Therapy: Application of Michelangelo Effect to Neurorehabilitation of Patients with Stroke.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The administration of thrombolysis usually reduces the risk of death and the consequences of stroke in the acute phase. However, having received thrombolysis administration is not a prognostic factor for neurorehabilitation outcome in the subacute phase of stroke. It is conceivably due to the complex intertwining of many clinical factors. An artificial neural network (ANN) analysis could be helpful in identifying the prognostic factors of neurorehabilitation outcomes and assigning a weight to each of the factors considered. This study hypothesizes that the prognostic factors could be different between patients who received and those who did not receive thrombolytic treatment, even if thrombolysis is not a prognostic factor per se. In a sample of 862 patients with ischemic stroke, the tested ANN identified some common factors (such as disability at admission, age, unilateral spatial neglect), some factors with higher weight in patients who received thrombolysis (hypertension, epilepsy, aphasia, obesity), and some other factors with higher weight in the other patients (dysphagia, malnutrition, total arterial circulatory infarction). Despite the fact that thrombolysis is not an independent prognostic factor for neurorehabilitation, it seems to modify the relative importance of other clinical factors in predicting which patients will better respond to neurorehabilitation.
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.