Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37038341›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2025

Outcome prediction prior to thrombectomy of the posterior circulation with machine learning.

Ludger Feyen, Stefan Rohde, Martin Weinzierl, Marcus Katoh, Patrick Haage, Nico Münnich, Helge Kniep

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors.

Ludger FeyenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8887-0275
Stefan RohdeFaculty of Health, School of Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Martin WeinzierlDepartment of Neurosurgery, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7755-0551
Marcus KatohDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany.
Patrick HaageDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Helios Klinikum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany.
Nico MünnichFaculty of Health, School of Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Helge KniepDepartment of Neuroradiological Diagnostics and Intervention, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeVarious studies have identified prognostic factors for a favorable outcome of endovascular treatment in posterior circulation. We evaluated various machine learning algorithms in their ability to classify between patients with favorable (defined as 0-2 points on the modified Rankin scale [mRS]), unfavorable (mRS 3-6), poor (mRS 5-6), and nonpoor (mRS 0-4) outcomes at dismissal.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 415 patients that were treated between 2018 and 2021 from the multicentric DGNR registry. Five models (random forest, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor, neural network [NN], and generalized linear model [GLM]) were trained with clinical input variables and evaluated with a test dataset of 82 patients. The model with the highest accuracy on the training dataset was defined as the best model.ResultsA total of 132 patients showed poor and 162 patients showed favorable outcome. All baseline variables except sex were highly significantly different between patients with favorable and unfavorable outcomes. The variables NIHSS, the presence of wake-up stroke, the administration of IV-thrombolysis and mRS pretreatment were significantly different between patients with poor and nonpoor outcomes. The best-performing NN achieved a sensitivity of 0.56, a specificity of 0.86 and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 on the test dataset in the classification analysis between favorable and unfavorable outcomes. The best-performing GLM achieved a sensitivity of 0.65, a specificity of 0.91 and an AUC of 0.81 in the classification analysis between poor and nonpoor outcomes.ConclusionShort-term favorable and poor outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke of the posterior circulation can be predicted prior to thrombectomy with moderate sensitivity and high specificity with machine learning models.

Indexed as

Ischemic StrokeMachine LearningThrombectomyAgedEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerPrognosisRegistriesRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomeischemic strokeMachine learningposterior circulationthrombectomywake-up stroke

Identifiers

PMID37038341
PMCPMC12202957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.