ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning for stroke prediction using imbalanced data.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms and integrative machine learning approaches to blood-brain barrier biomarker profiling for personalized ischemic stroke management.Physiological reports · 2026Review
- Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for 10-Year Ischemic Stroke Risk Prediction in Diverse Populations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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
The research focused on predicting strokes, a significant threat to health and well-being. The primary challenge addressed was the use of a highly imbalanced dataset. Various data preprocessing techniques were employed to tackle this, enabling the construction and comparison of machine-learning models for stroke prediction. Among the models assessed, the random forest model proved to be the most effective, achieving precision, recall, and F1-score levels of 90%, along with an accuracy of 90%. A random forest classifier was also trained using optimal hyperparameters obtained via grid search on balanced data to highlight the limitations of relying solely on accuracy in classification tasks. This approach demonstrated the model's high accuracy of 96%, underscoring the impracticality of using accuracy as the sole metric for performance evaluation in imbalanced datasets. In conclusion, the research underscores the critical role of advanced data processing and machine learning techniques in enhancing stroke prediction. The successful application of the random forest model and the recognition of accuracy's limitations provide a robust framework for future studies and practical implementations in healthcare settings. This work advances the predictive capabilities for stroke and paves the way for improved approaches to healthcare strategies, ultimately aiming to save lives and enhance the quality of life for individuals at risk.
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.