SynthesisBMC neurology2026
Machine learning in the diagnosis and prognosis of transient ischaemic attack: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransient ischaemic attack (TIA) is a major risk factor for stroke, with up to 15% of patients experiencing an event within 90 days, a large proportion in the first 48 h. Accurate diagnosis and prognostic stratification remain challenging due to transient symptoms, lack of biomarkers, and limitations of traditional clinical scores. Machine learning (ML) holds the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, risk prediction, and prognosis by harnessing complex clinical, imaging, and electronic health record data.
methodsPubMed was searched from January 2000 to the present. Studies reporting the association between ML models and TIA prognosis and diagnosis were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were synthesised narratively due to heterogeneity in outcomes and methodologies.
resultsA total of 10 studies were included. ML models demonstrated good discriminatory ability in diagnosing TIA compared with healthy controls. However, performance declined in metabolically complex subgroups and when distinguishing TIAs from stroke mimics. Three studies developed risk prediction models using electronic health records or CTA radiomics, with best-performing models achieving AUCs of 0.82–0.88. Studies that assessed prognostic outcomes consistently outperformed logistic regression, achieving AUCs of 0.77–0.94.
conclusionsML models show promise in enhancing TIA diagnosis, risk prediction, and prognostication, frequently outperforming traditional clinical scores and statistical methods. However, most studies lacked external validation, used heterogeneous endpoints, and provided limited interpretability. Future work should prioritise larger prospective cohorts, standardised outcome definitions, model explainability, and evaluation of real-world clinical impact. PROSPERO ID: CRD420251123717
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.