ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Interpretable machine learning for predicting early neurological deterioration in symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Endovascular treatment and clinical outcomes in minor ischemic stroke due to large-vessel disease: a retrospective study.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To develop and validate a machine learning (ML) model for early neurological deterioration (END) risk prediction in patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (SICAS). Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 557 patients with SICAS between January 2022 and December 2024. Relevant clinical data were collected. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression selected predictive features from clinical/imaging variables. Five ML algorithms, including Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Logistic Regression (LR), were trained (70% of the data) and validated (30% of the data) using 10-fold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) interpreted the feature contributions. Results: The overall incidence rate of END was 18.13%. The XGBoost model outperformed the other models, achieving a validation AUC of 0.874 (95% CI, 0.809-0.939), a sensitivity of 0.749, a specificity of 0.859, and excellent calibration (deviation: 0.116). DCA indicates the clinical utility of the XGBoost model. Key predictors included the NIHSS score (strongest driver), vascular stenosis severity, Triglyceride Glucose (TyG) index, age, initial systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diabetes. SHAP analysis provided interpretability for the machine learning model and revealed essential factors related to the risk of END in SICAS. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential of ML in predicting END in SICAS patients. The SHAP method enhances the interpretability of the prediction model, providing a practical and implementable solution for the early identification of high-risk patients.
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.