ArticleScientific reports2025
Compact machine learning model for perioperative stroke prediction prior to surgery: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Perioperative stroke significantly impacts postoperative outcomes. Current risk stratification methods for perioperative stroke prediction lack accuracy and practicality. We aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model that improves both accuracy and usability for predicting perioperative strokes. Data from 36,502 patients at Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH) were utilized to develop and internally validate. An external validation was conducted using data from 404 patients at Boramae Medical Center (BMC). Perioperative stroke was defined as a brain infarction of ischemic etiology, occurring within 30 days post-surgery. We developed ML-based prediction models comprising preoperative features and compared them with cardiovascular scores. Additionally, we developed a compact model utilizing the 10 most significant features of the best-performing model. The CatBoost-based prediction model showed the best discriminatory power for high-risk patients and outperformed cardiovascular scores in the external validation set (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], 0.867 [95% CI: 0.830-0.896]; revised cardiac index score, 0.528 [95% CI: 0.497-0.575; p < 0.000]; CHA
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.