ArticleScientific reports2024
Logistic regression analysis and machine learning for predicting post-stroke gait independence: a retrospective study.
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 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.
- The effect of community intervention based on deep learning-established early screening system and model construction for stroke.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Cardiac echocardiographic analysis with multi-scale effective fusion module: a novel stroke prediction approach.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- A clinical machine learning model for 1-year functional outcome prediction in acute ischemic stroke: temporal validation across evolving guidelines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A comprehensive explainable AI approach for enhancing transparency and interpretability in stroke prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk factors analysis of cognitive frailty among geriatric adults in nursing homes based on logistic regression and decision tree modeling.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated whether machine learning (ML) has better predictive accuracy than logistic regression analysis (LR) for gait independence at discharge in subacute stroke patients (n = 843) who could not walk independently at admission. We developed prediction models using LR and five ML algorithms-specifically, the decision tree (DT), support vector machine, artificial neural network, ensemble learning, and k-nearest neighbor methods. Functional Independence Measure sub-items were used to evaluate the ability to walk independently. Model predictive accuracies were evaluated using areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) as well as accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and specificity. The AUC for DT (0.812) was significantly lower than those for the other algorithms (p < 0.01); however, the AUC for LR (0.895) did not differ significantly from those for the other models (0.893-0.903). Other performance metrics showed no substantial differences between LR and ML algorithms. In conclusion, the DT algorithm had significantly low predictive accuracy, and LR showed no significant difference in predictive accuracy compared with the other ML algorithms. As its predictive accuracy is similar to that of ML, LR can continue to be used for predicting the prognosis of gait independence, with additional advantages of being easily understandable and manually computable.
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.