Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41602961›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025

Explainable machine learning for stroke risk prediction: a comparative study with SHAP-based interpretation.

Xiaoyu Tang, Min Tang, Wu Liu, Shaoyang Cui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xiaoyu TangShenzhen Hospital (Fu Tian) of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, The Sixth Clinical School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Min TangCollege of Acupuncture and Orthopedics, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Wu LiuCollege of Acupuncture and Orthopedics, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Shaoyang CuiShenzhen Hospital (Fu Tian) of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, The Sixth Clinical School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Stroke is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide, making early screening and risk prediction crucial. Traditional methods have limitations in handling nonlinear relationships between variables, class imbalance, and model interpretability. Methods: Logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), categorical boosting (CatBoost), multi-layer perceptron (MLP) neural network, and ensemble models were constructed and compared. Their performance in stroke risk prediction was systematically evaluated, and feature contributions were interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Confusion matrices and Precision-Recall (PR) curves were used to compare the differences in recognition of the positive class (stroke patients) among the models, and training time was calculated to quantify resource consumption. Results: The ensemble model and neural network demonstrated superior overall predictive ability to traditional algorithms, with the MLP performing particularly well in terms of recall. SHAP results revealed that "hypertension," "average blood glucose level," and "age" were key influencing factors. Confusion matrices and PR curves indicated differences in positive classification among the models. Training time analysis provided a basis for resource assessment for subsequent deployment. Conclusion: Machine learning methods have advantages in stroke risk prediction. Incorporating interpretability analysis can enhance the clinical credibility of the models, providing data and methodological reference for stroke risk stratification management and early warning.

Indexed as

machine learningmodel interpretabilityneural networkSHAPstroke prediction

Identifiers

PMID41602961
PMCPMC12832496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.