Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875590›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2024

Predictive Performance of Machine Learning-Based Models for Poststroke Clinical Outcomes in Comparison With Conventional Prognostic Scores: Multicenter, Hospital-Based Observational Study.

Fumi Irie, Koutarou Matsumoto, Ryu Matsuo, Yasunobu Nohara, Yoshinobu Wakisaka, Tetsuro Ago, Naoki Nakashima, Takanari Kitazono, Masahiro Kamouchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Fumi Irie *Department of Health Care Administration and Management, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7403-4188
Koutarou Matsumoto *Biostatistics Center, Graduate School of Medicine, Kurume University, Kurume, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0769-7763
Ryu MatsuoDepartment of Health Care Administration and Management, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9141-7068
Yasunobu NoharaBig Data Science and Technology, Faculty of Advanced Science and Technology, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2805-6597
Yoshinobu WakisakaDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5757-0894
Tetsuro AgoDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4560-6594
Naoki NakashimaMedical Information Center, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4926-8772
Takanari KitazonoDepartment of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9006-5937
Masahiro KamouchiDepartment of Health Care Administration and Management, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5348-8762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

brain infarctionmachine learningoutcomepredictionprognostic score

Identifiers

PMID38875590
PMCPMC11041492

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.