Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39733046›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Explainable artificial intelligence for stroke prediction through comparison of deep learning and machine learning models.

Khadijeh Moulaei, Lida Afshari, Reza Moulaei, Babak Sabet, Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, Mohammad Reza Afrash

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Khadijeh MoulaeiHealth Management and Economics Research Center, Health Management Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Lida AfshariDepartment of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Reza MoulaeiDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Shariati Hospital and School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Babak SabetArtificial Intelligence in Medical Sciences Research Center, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Mohammad MousaviMedical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Mohammad Reza AfrashArtificial Intelligence in Medical Sciences Research Center, Smart University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. M.afrash@sbmu.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Failure to predict stroke promptly may lead to delayed treatment, causing severe consequences like permanent neurological damage or death. Early detection using deep learning (DL) and machine learning (ML) models can enhance patient outcomes and mitigate the long-term effects of strokes. The aim of this study is to compare these models, exploring their efficacy in predicting stroke. This study analyzed a dataset comprising 663 records from patients hospitalized at Hazrat Rasool Akram Hospital in Tehran, Iran, including 401 healthy individuals and 262 stroke patients. A total of eight established ML (SVM, XGB, KNN, RF) and DL (DNN, FNN, LSTM, CNN) models were utilized to predict stroke. Techniques such as 10-fold cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning were implemented to prevent overfitting. The study also focused on interpretability through Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The evaluation of model's performance was based on accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, F1-score, and ROC curve metrics. Among DL models, LSTM showed superior sensitivity at 96.15%, while FNN exhibited better specificity (96.0%), accuracy (96.0%), F1-score (95.0%), and ROC (98.0%) among DL models. For ML models, RF displayed higher sensitivity (99.9%), accuracy (99.0%), specificity (100%), F1-score (99.0%), and ROC (99.9%). Overall, RF outperformed all models, while DL models surpassed ML models in most metrics except for RF. DL models (CNN, LSTM, DNN, FNN) achieved sensitivities from 93.0 to 96.15%, specificities from 80.0 to 96.0%, accuracies from 92.0 to 96.0%, F1-scores from 87.34 to 95.0%, and ROC scores from 95.0 to 98.0%. In contrast, ML models (KNN, XGB, SVM) showed sensitivities between 29.0% and 94.0%, specificities between 89.47% and 96.0%, accuracies between 71.0% and 95.0%, F1-scores between 44.0% and 95.0%, and ROC scores between 64.0% and 95.0%. This study demonstrates the efficacy of DL and ML models in predicting stroke, with the RF models outperforming all others in key metrics. While DL models generally surpassed ML models, RF's exceptional performance highlights the potential of combining these technologies for early stroke detection, significantly improving patient outcomes by preventing severe consequences like permanent neurological damage or death.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMachine LearningStrokeAgedArtificial IntelligenceFemaleHumansIranMaleMiddle AgedROC CurveSensitivity and Specificitydeep learningmachine learningpredictingstroke

Identifiers

PMID39733046
PMCPMC11682355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.