ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Predictive etiological classification of acute ischemic stroke through interpretable machine learning algorithms: a multicenter, prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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.
- Macrophage Lipid Homeostasis Drives IVDD via a Senescence-Dependent Impairment of Efferocytosis.Cell proliferation · 2026Article
- A Decade of Artificial Intelligence in Stroke Care (2015-2025): Trends, Clinical Translation, and the Precision Medicine Frontier-A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Cerebral Infarction: Epidemiology, Classification, Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Predicting early neurological deterioration in acute branch atheromatous disease without reperfusion therapy: a machine learning model.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Routine Laboratory Tests Predict 72-h Fatality in Patients With D-Dimer Levels ≥ 2 μg/mL: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Statistical and Machine Learning Models.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis, recurrence rates, and secondary prevention strategies varied significantly among different subtypes of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Machine learning (ML) techniques can uncover intricate, non-linear relationships within medical data, enabling the identification of factors associated with etiological classification. However, there is currently a lack of research utilizing ML algorithms for predicting AIS etiology.
objectiveWe aimed to use interpretable ML algorithms to develop AIS etiology prediction models, identify critical factors in etiology classification, and enhance existing clinical categorization.
methodsThis study involved patients with the Third China National Stroke Registry (CNSR-III). Nine models, which included Natural Gradient Boosting (NGBoost), Categorical Boosting (CatBoost), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest (RF), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM), Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and logistic regression (LR), were employed to predict large artery atherosclerosis (LAA), small vessel occlusion (SVO), and cardioembolism (CE) using an 80:20 randomly split training and test set. We designed an SFS-XGB with 10-fold cross-validation for feature selection. The primary evaluation metrics for the models included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for discrimination and the Brier score (or calibration plots) for calibration.
resultsA total of 5,213 patients were included, comprising 2,471 (47.4%) with LAA, 2,153 (41.3%) with SVO, and 589 (11.3%) with CE. In both LAA and SVO models, the AUC values of the ML models were significantly higher than that of the LR model (P < 0.001). The optimal model for predicting SVO (AUC [RF model] = 0.932) outperformed the optimal LAA model (AUC [NGB model] = 0.917) and the optimal CE model (AUC [LGBM model] = 0.846). Each model displayed relatively satisfactory calibration. Further analysis showed that the optimal CE model could identify potential CE patients in the undetermined etiology (SUE) group, accounting for 1,900 out of 4,156 (45.7%).
conclusionsThe ML algorithm effectively classified patients with LAA, SVO, and CE, demonstrating superior classification performance compared to the LR model. The optimal ML model can identify potential CE patients among SUE patients. These newly identified predictive factors may complement the existing etiological classification system, enabling clinicians to promptly categorize stroke patients' etiology and initiate optimal strategies for secondary prevention.
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.