ArticleJMIR AI2024
Predictive Performance of Machine Learning-Based Models for Poststroke Clinical Outcomes in Comparison With Conventional Prognostic Scores: Multicenter, Hospital-Based Observational Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trustworthy AI models to predict prolonged hospital length-of-stay in orthopedic surgery.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Integrative Multidimensional Machine Learning Models for Stroke Prognosis: Age-Stratified and History Engineered Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of vascular aging on stroke prognosis: the novel severity and arterial stiffness (SASt) score.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
- The Roles of NOTCH3 p.R544C and Thrombophilia Genes in Vietnamese Patients With Ischemic Stroke: Study Involving a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough machine learning is a promising tool for making prognoses, the performance of machine learning in predicting outcomes after stroke remains to be examined.
objectiveThis study aims to examine how much data-driven models with machine learning improve predictive performance for poststroke outcomes compared with conventional stroke prognostic scores and to elucidate how explanatory variables in machine learning-based models differ from the items of the stroke prognostic scores.
methodsWe used data from 10,513 patients who were registered in a multicenter prospective stroke registry in Japan between 2007 and 2017. The outcomes were poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score >2) and death at 3 months after stroke. Machine learning-based models were developed using all variables with regularization methods, random forests, or boosted trees. We selected 3 stroke prognostic scores, namely, ASTRAL (Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne), PLAN (preadmission comorbidities, level of consciousness, age, neurologic deficit), and iScore (Ischemic Stroke Predictive Risk Score) for comparison. Item-based regression models were developed using the items of these 3 scores. The model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination and calibration. To compare the predictive performance of the data-driven model with that of the item-based model, we performed internal validation after random splits of identical populations into 80% of patients as a training set and 20% of patients as a test set; the models were developed in the training set and were validated in the test set. We evaluated the contribution of each variable to the models and compared the predictors used in the machine learning-based models with the items of the stroke prognostic scores.
resultsThe mean age of the study patients was 73.0 (SD 12.5) years, and 59.1% (6209/10,513) of them were men. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the precision-recall curves for predicting poststroke outcomes were higher for machine learning-based models than for item-based models in identical populations after random splits. Machine learning-based models also performed better than item-based models in terms of the Brier score. Machine learning-based models used different explanatory variables, such as laboratory data, from the items of the conventional stroke prognostic scores. Including these data in the machine learning-based models as explanatory variables improved performance in predicting outcomes after stroke, especially poststroke death.
conclusionsMachine learning-based models performed better in predicting poststroke outcomes than regression models using the items of conventional stroke prognostic scores, although they required additional variables, such as laboratory data, to attain improved performance. Further studies are warranted to validate the usefulness of machine learning in clinical settings.
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.