ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025
Precision-Optimised Post-Stroke Prognoses.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent medicine cannot confidently predict who will recover from post-stroke impairments. Researchers have sought to bridge this gap by treating the post-stroke prognostic problem as a machine learning problem, reporting prediction error metrics across samples of patients whose outcomes are known. This approach effectively shares prediction error equally among the patients, which is contrary to the long-held clinical intuition that some patients' outcomes are more predictable than other patients' outcomes. Here, we test that intuition empirically, by asking whether those 'more predictable' patients can be identified before their outcomes are known.
methodsDrawing on lesion location and demographic data, we use ensemble classifiers to predict the presence of a variety of different language impairments in a large sample of stroke patients. We tune these models to maximise their Positive Predictive Value (or precision): that is, the probability that patients assigned to a class are really members of that class. We test whether those tuned models have high precision on independent data.
resultsPrecision-tuned models might only classify a subset of patients, but for that reduced set, the classifications are very likely to be correct: typically > 90% and sometimes > 95%. Small reductions of target precision could rapidly raise the proportion of patients for whom 'high enough precision' predictions can be made.
conclusionsHigh precision prognoses are possible when predicting language outcomes after stroke. Providing such predictions for subsets of patients might be a reasonable intermediate step on the way to providing them for all.
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.