ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and interpretation of a machine learning risk prediction model for post-stroke depression in a Chinese population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a machine learning-based screening model for the risk of depression among the elderly in China.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Explainable machine learning for risk prediction of acute cardiac tamponade during atrial fibrillation ablation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exploring the complex mechanisms of post-intracerebral hemorrhage depression: towards personalized treatment approaches.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- Toward precision psychological rehabilitation: predicting CBT efficacy in post-stroke depression using machine learning.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
Abstract
Current evidence for predictive models of post-stroke depression (PSD) risk based on machine learning (ML) remains limited. The aim of this study is to develop a superior predictive model based on ML algorithms for PSD in the Chinese population. We retrospectively gathered data from 507 patients who were hospitalized for ischemic stroke between June 2022 and August 2023 at a medical facility in China. The patients were separated into a training group (70%) and a validation group (30%). After selecting the core predictors of PSD using LASSO regression dimension reduction, six machine learning (ML) algorithms were used to statistically model the risk prediction of PSD. Based on five-fold cross-validation, we evaluated the predictive performance of the developed model. Shape Additive Explanation (SHAP) analysis was then used to interpret the best-performing model. PSD developed in 158 (31.16%) of the 507 eligible patients. Frontal lobe lesion, number of lesions, ALB, NIHSS, PSQI, and MMSE were considered significant predictors of PSD. The AUC(0.941), accuracy (0.876), sensitivity (0.822), specificity (0.899) , F1 score (0.802), and average precision (AP) value (0.858) of XGBoost model were superior to other ML models. The XGBoost model offers an interpretable PSD prediction tool using key clinical indicators, though external validation is needed to confirm generalizability.
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.