ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Can machine learning improve on the early prediction of upper limb recovery after stroke?
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Machine Learning to Predict Upper-Limb Outcome Within the First 72 Hours Poststroke.Stroke · 2026Article
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Novel Technology and the Internet of Medical Things.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Integrating metagenomics, transcriptomics, and molecular docking to reveal core gene biomarkers and gut microbiota regulatory mechanisms in tuberculous meningitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Evoked potentials in stroke rehabilitation: current applications, emerging technologies, and future directions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly prediction of upper limb recovery is important to optimise rehabilitation and inform patients but remains challenging due to inter-individual variability. This study aims to (1) develop and validate a machine learning model to predict arm-hand capacity at six months post-stroke using clinical variables from the first week; (2) compare its performance to a mixed-effects model; and (3) co-design a user-friendly output visualisation with clinician input.
methodsFrom data of 451 first-ever ischemic stroke patients, we selected total Action Research Arm Test score (ARAT), shoulder abduction, and finger extension as predictors. An XGBoost model was trained on these variables measured at varying time points within the first five months, using 5-fold, 5-repeat cross-validation. We employed bootstrap aggregation to obtain generalisable predictions and prediction intervals to quantify uncertainty. The model's performance was validated on a hold-out set and compared against a mixed-effects model using median absolute error (MedAE).
resultsThe XGBoost model achieved a MedAE of 4.2 points (IQR = [1.2, 12.6]) on the ARAT when applied at seven days post-stroke, compared to 13.7 points (IQR = [4.6, 27.8]) for the mixed-effects model in the same patients.
conclusionOur model provides significantly more accurate predictions of upper limb recovery, with a 69% error reduction compared to the mixed-effects model. Its ease of use, interpretability, and use of routinely collected clinical data make it suitable for digital clinical workflows. Future research could validate the model in larger, more recent cohorts and explore integrating neuroimaging and temporal features.
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.