ArticleHeliyon2024
Construction and comparison of short-term prognosis prediction model based on machine learning in acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive performance of machine learning models in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- A Synthetic Lethality-Informed Multi-Omic Framework for Identifying a Five-Gene Diagnostic Signature in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction model for functional prognosis of acute ischemic stroke based on MRI radiomics of white matter hyperintensities.BMC medical imaging · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To construct and compared the short-term prognosis prediction models of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) by machine learning (ML). Methods: Retrospectively study. The group W (mRS≤3) was clustered, and combined with group P (mRS>3) to form the post-clustering dataset for modeling. The "glmnet", "rpart", "xgboost", "randomForest", "neuralnet" packages were used to construct ML models. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predict value (PPV), negative predict value (NPV) among the models were compared. Four external clinical datasets were used for external clinical validation. The optimal prediction model was determined by variable screening ability, model visualization, and external clinical validation performance. Results: The post-clustering dataset contains 139 patients (group W) and 122 patients (group P). The neutrophil multiplied by D-dimer (NDM) has predictive value in all ML prediction models in this study. In the decision tree model, NDM Conclusions: NDM shows predictive value for AIS short-term prognosis in all ML models in this study. The optimal model in screening characteristic variables and the performance of in external clinical datasets was RF model. In the analysis of medical data with small sample size and outcome as categorical variables, RF could be used as the main algorithm to build a model.
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.