SynthesisActa neurologica Belgica2025
The performance of machine learning for predicting the recurrent stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 24,350 patients.
Synthesis in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Approximately one-third of patients with stroke experienced a second stroke. This study investigates the predictive value of machine learning (ML) algorithms for recurrent stroke.
methodThis study was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) were searched until January 1, 2024. The quality assessment of studies was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool. The diagnostic meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR), diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under of the curve (AUC) by the MIDAS package in STATA V.17.
resultsTwelve studies, comprising 24,350 individuals, were included. The meta-analysis revealed a sensitivity of 71% (95% CI 0.64-0.78) and a specificity of 88% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.95). Positive and negative DLR were 5.93 (95% CI 3.05-11.55) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.28-0.39), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy and DOR was 2.89 (95% CI 2.32-3.46) and 18.04 (95% CI 10.21-31.87), respectively. The summary ROC curve indicated an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85).
conclusionML demonstrates promise in predicting recurrent strokes, with moderate to high sensitivity and specificity. However, the high heterogeneity observed underscores the need for standardized approaches and further research to enhance the reliability and generalizability of these models. ML-based recurrent stroke prediction can potentially augment clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes by identifying high-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39505819What 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.