ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Using clinical and radiographic variables to predict intracranial aneurysm rupture status with machine learning.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With excitement in the medical community around artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) techniques have been applied to correlate clinical and radiographic variables with intracranial aneurysm (IA) rupture status. In this study, we applied various ML techniques, including random forest (RF), XGBoost (XGB), support vector machines (SVM), and multi-layer perceptron (MLP), to predict IA rupture status. Methods: The dataset consisted of 178 IAs each with 53 clinical and radiographic features for analysis. We removed features with high correlation (>0.8) with respect to the target variable to reduce redundancy. We applied grid search to fine-tune the hyperparameters for each model. Each model was evaluated across five iterations of 5-fold cross-validation. Overall performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) were extracted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the area under the curve (AUC) scores between models. Results: The most common locations were internal carotid artery (42), anterior communicating artery (41), middle cerebral artery (32), and posterior communicating artery (25). The AUC for the RF (0.85) and XGB (0.76) models were significantly higher than those for the SVM (0.69) and MLP (0.65) models ( Conclusion: Among the models, RF achieved the highest accuracy (85%) with balanced precision and recall. Across models 3D geometric features drove model performance, highlighting the importance of these features in predicting rupture status.
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.