Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38874054›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2024

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prehospital Machine Learning Scores as Screening Tools for Early Detection of Large Vessel Occlusion in Patients With Suspected Stroke.

Muath Alobaida, Martha Joddrell, Yalin Zheng, Gregory Y H Lip, Fiona J Rowe, Wahbi K El-Bouri, Andrew Hill, Deirdre A Lane, Stephanie L Harrison

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Drip and ship in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025
    Review
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

9 authors.

Muath AlobaidaLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1257-1428
Martha JoddrellLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4088-7043
Yalin ZhengLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.
Gregory Y H LipLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7566-1626
Fiona J RoweInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9210-9131
Wahbi K El-BouriLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-5927
Andrew HillLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2875-0546
Deirdre A LaneLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5604-9378
Stephanie L HarrisonLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital Liverpool UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced detection of large vessel occlusion (LVO) through machine learning (ML) for acute ischemic stroke appears promising. This systematic review explored the capabilities of ML models compared with prehospital stroke scales for LVO prediction. METHODS AND

resultsSix bibliographic databases were searched from inception until October 10, 2023. Meta-analyses pooled the model performance using area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Of 1544 studies screened, 8 retrospective studies were eligible, including 32 prehospital stroke scales and 21 ML models. Of the 9 prehospital scales meta-analyzed, the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation had the highest pooled AUC (0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.84]). Support Vector Machine achieved the highest AUC of 9 ML models included (pooled AUC, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.88-0.89]). Six prehospital stroke scales and 10 ML models were eligible for summary receiver operating characteristic analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for any prehospital stroke scale were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68-0.75) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81), respectively; summary receiver operating characteristic curve AUC was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83). Pooled sensitivity for any ML model for LVO was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), specificity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80-0.89), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve AUC was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89).

conclusionsBoth prehospital stroke scales and ML models demonstrated varying accuracies in predicting LVO. Despite ML potential for improved LVO detection in the prehospital setting, application remains limited by the absence of prospective external validation, limited sample sizes, and lack of real-world performance data in a prehospital setting.

Indexed as

Early DiagnosisEmergency Medical ServicesMachine LearningHumansIschemic StrokePredictive Value of TestsStrokeartificial intelligenceendovascular thrombectomylarge vessel occlusionmachine learningprehospitalstroke

Identifiers

PMID38874054
PMCPMC11255760

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.