ArticlePloS one2023
Improvement of predictive accuracies of functional outcomes after subacute stroke inpatient rehabilitation by machine learning models.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust Unsupervised Analysis of Longitudinal Functional Trajectories in Older Inpatients Reveals Stable Recovery Profiles: The AIRCOT Study.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Transition to Functional Upper Limb Recovery After Intensive Inpatient Rehabilitation in Early Subacute Stroke.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning prediction of functional independence measure scores and gain in subacute stroke survivors.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Significance of updating discharge FIM prediction at one month after admission using multiple regression analysis.Japanese journal of comprehensive rehabilitation science · 2026Article
- Predictive accuracy of multiple regression analysis stratified into four groups of admission motor FIM based on decision tree analysis.Japanese journal of comprehensive rehabilitation science · 2025Article
- Logistic regression analysis and machine learning for predicting post-stroke gait independence: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Leveraging Emerging Technologies to Expand Accessibility and Improve Precision in Rehabilitation and Exercise for People with Disabilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesStepwise linear regression (SLR) is the most common approach to predicting activities of daily living at discharge with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) in stroke patients, but noisy nonlinear clinical data decrease the predictive accuracies of SLR. Machine learning is gaining attention in the medical field for such nonlinear data. Previous studies reported that machine learning models, regression tree (RT), ensemble learning (EL), artificial neural networks (ANNs), support vector regression (SVR), and Gaussian process regression (GPR), are robust to such data and increase predictive accuracies. This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracies of SLR and these machine learning models for FIM scores in stroke patients.
methodsSubacute stroke patients (N = 1,046) who underwent inpatient rehabilitation participated in this study. Only patients' background characteristics and FIM scores at admission were used to build each predictive model of SLR, RT, EL, ANN, SVR, and GPR with 10-fold cross-validation. The coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE) values were compared between the actual and predicted discharge FIM scores and FIM gain.
resultsMachine learning models (R2 of RT = 0.75, EL = 0.78, ANN = 0.81, SVR = 0.80, GPR = 0.81) outperformed SLR (0.70) to predict discharge FIM motor scores. The predictive accuracies of machine learning methods for FIM total gain (R2 of RT = 0.48, EL = 0.51, ANN = 0.50, SVR = 0.51, GPR = 0.54) were also better than of SLR (0.22).
conclusionsThis study suggested that the machine learning models outperformed SLR for predicting FIM prognosis. The machine learning models used only patients' background characteristics and FIM scores at admission and more accurately predicted FIM gain than previous studies. ANN, SVR, and GPR outperformed RT and EL. GPR could have the best predictive accuracy for FIM prognosis.
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.