ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Posterior circulation ischemic stroke: radiomics-based machine learning approach to identify onset time from magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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.
- Deep learning to identify stroke within 4.5 h using DWI and FLAIR in a prospective multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The impracticality of radiomics research in acute ischemic stroke: from the perspective of primary healthcare institutions.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
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
Abstract
purposePosterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCIS) possesses unique features. However, previous studies have primarily or exclusively relied on anterior circulation stroke cases to build machine learning (ML) models for predicting onset time. To date, there is no research reporting the effectiveness and stability of ML in identifying PCIS onset time. We aimed to build diffusion-weighted imaging-based ML models to identify the onset time of PCIS patients.
methodsConsecutive PCIS patients within 24 h of definite symptom onset were included (112 in the training set and 49 in the independent test set). Images were processed as follows: volume of interest segmentation, image feature extraction, and feature selection. Five ML models, naïve Bayes, logistic regression, tree ensemble, k-nearest neighbor, and random forest, were built based on the training set to estimate the stroke onset time (binary classification: ≤ 4.5 h or > 4.5 h). Relative standard deviations (RSD), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the calibration plot was performed to evaluate the stability and performance of the five models.
resultsThe random forest model had the best performance in the test set, with the highest area under the curve (AUC, 0.840; 95% CI: 0.706, 0.974). This model also achieved the highest accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (83.7%, 64.3%, 91.4%, 75.0%, and 86.5%, respectively). Furthermore, the model had high stability (RSD = 0.0094).
conclusionThe PCIS case-based ML model was effective for estimating the symptom onset time and achieved considerably high specificity and stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38592454What 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.