ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2023
Prognostic estimation for acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy within an extended therapeutic window using an interpretable machine learning model.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2023. 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.
- Construction and Validation of a 90-Day Mortality Risk Prediction Model Based on Interpretable Machine Learning for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model integrating baseline multimodal CT perfusion and clinical data for predicting 9-month functional outcomes in acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is effective for acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) within an extended therapeutic window. However, successful reperfusion does not guarantee positive prognosis, with around 40-50% of cases yielding favorable outcomes. Preoperative prediction of patient outcomes is essential to identify those who may benefit from MT. Although machine learning (ML) has shown promise in handling variables with non-linear relationships in prediction models, its "black box" nature and the absence of ML models for extended-window MT prognosis remain limitations. Objective: This study aimed to establish and select the optimal model for predicting extended-window MT outcomes, with the Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) approach used to enhance the interpretability of the selected model. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 260 AIS-LVO patients undergoing extended-window MT. Selected patients were allocated into training and test sets at a 3:1 ratio following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four ML classifiers and one logistic regression (Logit) model were constructed using pre-treatment variables from the training set. The optimal model was selected through comparative validation, with key features interpreted using the SHAP approach. The effectiveness of the chosen model was further evaluated using the test set. Results: Of the 212 selected patients, 159 comprised the training and 53 the test sets. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) showed the highest discrimination with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93 during validation, and maintained an AUC of 0.77 during testing. SHAP analysis identified ischemic core volume, baseline NHISS score, ischemic penumbra volume, ASPECTS, and patient age as the top five determinants of outcome prediction. Conclusion: XGBoost emerged as the most effective for predicting the prognosis of AIS-LVO patients undergoing MT within the extended therapeutic window. SHAP interpretation improved its clinical confidence, paving the way for ML in clinical decision-making.
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.