ArticleBMJ open2023
Development of rapid and effective risk prediction models for stroke in the Chinese population: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urban and rural disparities in stroke prediction using machine learning among Chinese older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Acute ischemic stroke prediction and predictive factors analysis using hematological indicators in elderly hypertensives post-transient ischemic attack.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of cerebral artery territorial infarcts in acute ischemic stroke using non-contrast CT.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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to use easily obtained and directly observable clinical features to establish predictive models to identify patients at increased risk of stroke. SETTING AND
participantsA total of 46 240 valid records were obtained from 8 research centres and 14 communities in Jiangxi province, China, between February and September 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were calculated to test the performance of the five models (logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and gradient boosting DT). The calibration curve was used to show calibration performance.
resultsThe results indicated that XGBoost (AUC: 0.924, accuracy: 0.873, sensitivity: 0.776, specificity: 0.916) and RF (AUC: 0.924, accuracy: 0.872, sensitivity: 0.778, specificity: 0.913) demonstrated excellent performance in predicting stroke. Physical inactivity, hypertension, meat-based diet and high salt intake were important prediction features of stroke.
conclusionThe five machine learning models all had good predictive and discriminatory performance for stroke. The performance of RF and XGBoost was slightly better than that of LR, which was easier to interpret and less prone to overfitting. This work provides a rapid and accurate tool for stroke risk assessment, which can help to improve the efficiency of stroke screening medical services and the management of high-risk groups.
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.