ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024
Accurately predicting the risk of unfavorable outcomes after endovascular coil therapy in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: an interpretable machine learning model.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the predictive performance of machine learning and conventional logistic regression models for poor discharge outcomes in patients with Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A retrospective cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Machine learning modeling for outcome prediction of hospitalized patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite endovascular coiling as a valid modality in treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), there is a risk of poor prognosis. However, the clinical utility of previously proposed early prediction tools remains limited. We aimed to develop a clinically generalizable machine learning (ML) models for accurately predicting unfavorable outcomes in aSAH patients after endovascular coiling.
methodsFunctional outcomes at 6 months after endovascular coiling were assessed via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and unfavorable outcomes were defined as mRS 3-6. Five ML algorithms (logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, deep neural network, and extreme gradient boosting) were used for model development. The area under precision-recall curve (AUPRC) and receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used as main indices of model evaluation. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was applied to interpret the best-performing ML model.
resultsA total of 371 patients were eventually included into this study, and 85.4% of them had favorable outcomes. Among the five models, the DNN model had a better performance with AUPRC of 0.645 (AUROC of 0.905). Postoperative GCS score, size of aneurysm, and age were the top three powerful predictors. The further analysis of five random cases presented the good interpretability of the DNN model.
conclusionInterpretable clinical prediction models based on different ML algorithms have been successfully constructed and validated, which would serve as reliable tools in optimizing the treatment decision-making of aSAH. Our DNN model had better performance to predict the unfavorable outcomes at 6 months in aSAH patients compared with Yan's nomogram model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37624541What 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.