ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
The use of cloud based machine learning to predict outcome in intracerebral haemorrhage without explicit programming expertise.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Poor Outcomes in Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine Learning (ML) techniques require novel computer programming skills along with clinical domain knowledge to produce a useful model. We demonstrate the use of a cloud-based ML tool that does not require any programming expertise to develop, validate and deploy a prognostic model for Intracerebral Haemorrhage (ICH). The data of patients admitted with Spontaneous Intracerebral haemorrhage from January 2015 to December 2019 was accessed from our prospectively maintained hospital stroke registry. 80% of the dataset was used for training, 10% for validation, and 10% for testing. Seventeen input variables were used to predict the dichotomized outcomes (Good outcome mRS 0-3/ Bad outcome mRS 4-6), using machine learning (ML) and logistic regression (LR) models. The two different approaches were evaluated using Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), Precision recall and accuracy. Our data set comprised of a cohort of 1000 patients. The data was split 8:1 for training & testing respectively. The AUC ROC of the ML model was 0.86 with an accuracy of 75.7%. With LR AUC ROC was 0.74 with an accuracy of 73.8%. Feature importance chart showed that Glasgow coma score (GCS) at presentation had the highest relative importance, followed by hematoma volume and age in both approaches. Machine learning models perform better when compared to logistic regression. Models can be developed by clinicians possessing domain expertise and no programming experience using cloud based tools. The models so developed lend themselves to be incorporated into clinical workflow.
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.