ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of machine learning-based models for predicting sarcopenia risk in stroke patients and analysis of associated factors.
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 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Design of Plant-Protein Meat Analogues: Integrating Nutrition, Functionality, and Fibrillation-Based Texturization.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning models to predict sarcopenia risk in stroke patients and to identify the most relevant clinical features associated with its occurrence. In this prospective study, 425 stroke patients were enrolled between October 2024 and April 2025. Patients from Kunming First People's Hospital (n = 308) formed the training cohort, while those from Kunming Yan'an Hospital (n = 117) comprised the validation cohort. Feature selection was performed using a random forest algorithm. Five machine learning models-logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, naïve Bayes, and gradient boosting-were developed and evaluated using accuracy, recall, precision, specificity, F1 score, and area under the curve (AUC). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were applied to the best-performing model to interpret key predictors. Of the 425 patients, 145 (34.1%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between the sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia groups across multiple clinical variables. The random forest model demonstrated the best predictive performance across all metrics. SHAP analysis revealed BMI, serum albumin, age, uric acid, creatinine, hemoglobin, calcium, triglycerides, C-reactive protein, total protein, and urea as the most influential predictors, reflecting nutritional, metabolic, and inflammatory status. The random forest model achieved superior performance in predicting sarcopenia risk after stroke. Combining machine learning with SHAP interpretability offers a robust and explainable framework for early identification and personalized management of post-stroke sarcopenia, supporting precision geriatric care.
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.