Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40336699›Full record

ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2025

Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Prediction of the Risk of Clinically Ineffective Reperfusion in Patients Following Thrombectomy for Ischemic Stroke.

Xiaolong Hu, Dayong Qi, Suya Li, Shifei Ye, Yue Chen, Wei Cao, Meng Du, Tianheng Zheng, Peng Li, Yibin Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

10 authors.

Xiaolong Hu *Tongji University School of Medicine, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-3450-3733
Dayong Qi *Department of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Suya LiDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Shifei YeDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yue ChenDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Wei CaoDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Meng DuDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Tianheng ZhengDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Peng LiDepartment of Neurovascular Disease, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yibin FangTongji University School of Medicine, Tongji University Affiliated Shanghai 4th People's Hospital, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite successful recanalization after thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke, poor prognosis often persists. This study aimed to investigate the factors contributing to clinically ineffective reperfusion (CIR), develop and validate a machine-learning model to predict CIR, and provide guidance for future clinical treatments. Methods: We collected data from patients undergoing thrombectomy at Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital between December 2021 and June 2024. The clinical variables were compared between the clinically ineffective and effective recanalization groups using univariate analysis. Four machine learning models were developed: random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), and k-nearest neighbor (KNN). Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and heatmap visualization. The SHAP method rank the feature importance and provided interpretability for the final model. Results: Among the four machine learning models, the RF model showed the best performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.0), accuracy of 0.93, and specificity of 0.97 on the test dataset. The SHAP algorithm identified the number of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) attempts as the key factor influencing CIR. Based on the RF model, a web-based calculator for CIR prediction is available at https://ineffectivereperfusion.shinyapps.io/calculate/. The final model included ten parameters: EVT attempts, diabetes mellitus, previous ischemic stroke, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS score), preoperative infarction in the basal ganglia, baseline diastolic blood pressure, clot burden score (CBS)/basilar artery on computed tomography angiography (BATMAN) score, stroke cause, collateral grade, and MLS. Conclusion: We developed and validated the first interpretable machine learning model for CIR prediction after EVT, surpassing traditional methods. Our CIR risk prediction platform enables early intervention and personalized treatment. The number of EVT attempts has emerged as a key determinant, underscoring the need for optimized procedural timing to improve outcomes.

Indexed as

acute ischemic strokeclinically ineffective reperfusionmachine learningonline predictive platformpredictive model

Identifiers

PMID40336699
PMCPMC12057630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.