ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of the short-term prognosis of acute ischaemic stroke in patients with high treatment platelet reactivity using explainable machine learning.
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.
- Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model for Grade 3 Primary Graft Dysfunction Following Lung Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Integration of imaging and clinical biomarkers for cerebral infarction diagnosis via NeuroFusionNet.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study is to establish and validate an optimal explainable prediction model based on a machine learning (ML) approach to predict the short-term prognosis in high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) individuals with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Using individual basic characteristics, blood test indices, and the CYP2C19 genotype, a model to predict a poor functional prognosis (modified Rankin scale score ≥ 3) was constructed based on ML models, including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting, and light gradient boosting machine. On this basis, global and local interpretability techniques were used to interpret selected ML models and explore the risk factors affecting the short-term prognosis of AIS in patients with HTPR. In this study, the performance of the model was futher evaluated through sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis. A total of 515 AIS patients with HTPR were retrospectively enrolled, and approximately 129 (25%) had a poor outcome in the short term. Among the 6 ML models, RF performed best in discriminative ability in terms of area under the curve (0.84 [0.71-0.97]), accuracy (0.80 [0.71-0.89]), and precision (0.71 [0.61-0.81], which are far superior to the other models. Interpretability techniques showed that high levels of diastolic blood pressure, blood urea nitrogen, homocysteine, C-reactive protein, white blood cells, and CYP2C19 poor metabolizers were significant predictors of a poor prognosis of AIS in patients with HTPR. The risk prediction model for AIS patients with HTPR based on RF algorithms has high predictive power. By applying interpretability methods, the model's transparency and clinical usability were enhanced, offering a reference for the clinical prevention and treatment of HTPR.
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.