ArticleScientific reports2024
Identifying potential (re)hemorrhage among sporadic cerebral cavernous malformations using machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebral cavernous malformations: epidemiology, molecular pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Large Pontine Cavernoma with Hemorrhage: Case Report on Surgical Approach and Recovery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Review
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
Abstract
The (re)hemorrhage in patients with sporadic cerebral cavernous malformations (CCM) was the primary aim for CCM management. However, accurately identifying the potential (re)hemorrhage among sporadic CCM patients in advance remains a challenge. This study aims to develop machine learning models to detect potential (re)hemorrhage in sporadic CCM patients. This study was based on a dataset of 731 sporadic CCM patients in open data platform Dryad. Sporadic CCM patients were followed up 5 years from January 2003 to December 2018. Support vector machine (SVM), stacked generalization, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were used to construct models. The performance of models was evaluated by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (PR-AUC) and other metrics. A total of 517 patients with sporadic CCM were included (330 female [63.8%], mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 42.1 [15.5] years). 76 (re)hemorrhage (14.7%) occurred during follow-up. Among 3 machine learning models, XGBoost model yielded the highest mean (SD) AUROC (0.87 [0.06]) in cross-validation. The top 4 features of XGBoost model were ranked with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations). All-Elements XGBoost model achieved an AUROCs of 0.84 and PR-AUC of 0.49 in testing set, with a sensitivity of 0.86 and a specificity of 0.76. Importantly, 4-Elements XGBoost model developed using top 4 features got a AUROCs of 0.83 and PR-AUC of 0.40, a sensitivity of 0.79, and a specificity of 0.72 in testing set. Two machine learning-based models achieved accurate performance in identifying potential (re)hemorrhages within 5 years in sporadic CCM patients. These models may provide insights for 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.