SynthesisBrain and behavior2025
Predictive Value of Machine Learning Models for Cerebral Edema Risk in Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Predicting the efficacy of bevacizumab on peritumoral edema based on imaging features and machine learning.Scientific reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStroke patients are at high risk of developing cerebral edema, which can have severe consequences. However, there are currently few effective tools for early identification or prediction of this risk. As machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in clinical practice, its effectiveness in predicting cerebral edema risk in stroke patients has been explored. Nonetheless, the lack of systematic evidence on its predictive value challenges the update of simple and user-friendly risk assessment tools. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the predictive utility of ML for cerebral edema in stroke patients.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database up to February 21, 2024. The risk of bias in selected studies was assessed using a bias assessment tool for predictive models. Meta-analysis synthesized results from validation sets.
resultsWe included 22 studies with 25,096 stroke patients and 25 models, which were constructed using common and interpretable clinical features. In the validation cohort, the models achieved a concordance index (c-index) of 0.840 (95% CI: 0.810-0.871) for predicting poststroke cerebral edema, with a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72-0.79) and a specificity of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90).
conclusionML models are significant in predicting poststroke cerebral edema, providing clinicians with a powerful prognostic tool. However, radiomics-based research was not included. We anticipate advancements in radiomics research to enhance the predictive power of ML for poststroke cerebral edema.
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.