ArticleNeuroRehabilitation2026
Interpretable Machine Learning for Stroke Recovery: Predicting Discharge and 3-Month Functional Outcomes.
Article in NeuroRehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and web-based implementation of a machine learning model for predicting one-year adverse outcomes in acute ischaemic stroke.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- An interpretable analysis of the depressive status and its influencing factors in elderly patients with stroke.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionStroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide. This study uses Machine Learning models to investigate factors influencing modified Rankin Scale scores at discharge and three months post-discharge.MethodsData from 116 stroke patients were analyzed using four predictive models: Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB). Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) were also employed to interpret factor significance.Results and discussionThe XGB model achieved an Area Under the Curve of 79% at discharge and 87% three months post-discharge. SHAP analysis revealed changing factor significance over time. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was most critical at discharge, while post-discharge destination became more significant at three months. Age, time metrics, thrombolysis therapy, and management of long-term health issues also proved influential.ConclusionsFindings highlight the complex, evolving nature of stroke recovery. The shift in factor importance from clinical interventions to broader health management issues emphasizes the need for time-sensitive, multifaceted approaches to stroke care. This study contributes to understanding stroke recovery by identifying key influencing factors and demonstrating the value of SHAP for model interpretation. The insights gained have practical implications for rehabilitation practices. By identifying evolving predictors of recovery, the proposed framework may support early stratification of rehabilitation needs, assist clinicians in tailoring rehabilitation intensity and modality, and inform discharge destination decisions.
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.