Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38439097›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2024

Development and validation of a machine learning-based predictive model for assessing the 90-day prognostic outcome of patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.

Zhi Geng, Chaoyi Yang, Ziye Zhao, Yibing Yan, Tao Guo, Chaofan Liu, Aimei Wu, Xingqi Wu, Ling Wei, Yanghua Tian and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

Zhi Geng *Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5948-6215
Chaoyi Yang *Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Ziye Zhao *Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Yibing YanDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Tao GuoCenter for Biomedical Imaging, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, Anhui, China.
Chaofan LiuCenter for Biomedical Imaging, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, Anhui, China.
Aimei WuDepartment of Neurology, The Second People's Hospital of Hefei, Hefei Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Xingqi WuDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Ling WeiDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Yanghua TianDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Panpan HuDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. hpppanda9@126.com.
Kai WangDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. wangkai1964@126.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31970979National Natural Science Foundation of China 821001498National Natural Science Foundation of China 82371201Research Fund of Anhui Institute of translational medicine 2022zhyx-B11STI2030-Major Projects 2021ZD0201801the Postgraduate Innovation Research and Practice Program of Anhui Medical University YJS20230127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Predicting the prognosis of patients with sICH remains an important issue, which significantly affects treatment decisions. Utilizing readily available clinical parameters to anticipate the unfavorable prognosis of sICH patients holds notable clinical significance. This study employs five machine learning algorithms to establish a practical platform for the prediction of short-term prognostic outcomes in individuals afflicted with sICH.

methodsWithin the framework of this retrospective analysis, the model underwent training utilizing data gleaned from 413 cases from the training center, with subsequent validation employing data from external validation center. Comprehensive clinical information, laboratory analysis results, and imaging features pertaining to sICH patients were harnessed as training features for machine learning. We developed and validated the model efficacy using all the selected features of the patients using five models: Support Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), XGboost and LightGBM, respectively. The process of Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) was executed for optimal feature screening. An internal five-fold cross-validation was employed to pinpoint the most suitable hyperparameters for the model, while an external five-fold cross-validation was implemented to discern the machine learning model demonstrating the superior average performance. Finally, the machine learning model with the best average performance is selected as our final model while using it for external validation. Evaluation of the machine learning model's performance was comprehensively conducted through the utilization of the ROC curve, accuracy, and other relevant indicators. The SHAP diagram was utilized to elucidate the variable importance within the model, culminating in the amalgamation of the above metrics to discern the most succinct features and establish a practical prognostic prediction platform.

resultsA total of 413 patients with sICH patients were collected in the training center, of which 180 were patients with poor prognosis. A total of 74 patients with sICH were collected in the external validation center, of which 26 were patients with poor prognosis. Within the training set, the test set AUC values for SVM, LR, RF, XGBoost, and LightGBM models were recorded as 0.87, 0.896, 0.916, 0.885, and 0.912, respectively. The best average performance of the machine learning models in the training set was the RF model (average AUC: 0.906 ± 0.029, P < 0.01). The model still maintains a good performance in the external validation center, with an AUC of 0.817 (95% CI 0.705-0.928). Pertaining to feature importance for short-term prognostic attributes of sICH patients, the NIHSS score reigned supreme, succeeded by AST, Age, white blood cell, and hematoma volume, among others. In culmination, guided by the RF model's variable importance weight and the model's ROC curve insights, the NIHSS score, AST, Age, white blood cell, and hematoma volume were integrated to forge a short-term prognostic prediction platform tailored for sICH patients.

conclusionWe constructed a prediction model based on the results of the RF model incorporating five clinically accessible predictors with reliable predictive efficacy for the short-term prognosis of sICH patients. Meanwhile, the performance of the external validation set was also more stable, which can be used for accurate prediction of short-term prognosis of sICH patients.

Indexed as

Cerebral HemorrhageHematomaHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRetrospective StudiesMachine learningPrediction modelPrognosisSpontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID38439097
PMCPMC10910789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.