ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Explainable machine learning for stroke risk prediction: a comparative study with SHAP-based interpretation.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Digital Technologies Across the Stroke Continuum: From Risk Prediction to Real-Time Monitoring and Rapid Response.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Genetic determinants of metabolic-inflammatory dysregulation and machine learning prediction of COVID-19.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Work-Life Conditions as the Primary Determinant of Seafarer Mental Health: An Explainable Machine Learning Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.