ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Explainable machine learning prediction of functional independence measure scores and gain in subacute stroke survivors.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional regression models struggle with non-linear data, limiting their ability to predict health outcomes such as activities of daily living (ADL) in stroke survivors. Machine learning (ML) methods offer improved accuracy but often lack interpretability. Explainable ML (XML) algorithms, including SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), promise both precision and interpretability. This study aimed to develop interpretable XML-based prediction models for discharge ADL in subacute stroke survivors and to identify key prognostic factors.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 980 subacute stroke survivors admitted to the Tokyo Bay Rehabilitation Hospital between March 2015 and September 2019. Thirty-three explanatory variables, including age, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) subitems, physical function measures, and nutritional assessments, were used to predict discharge FIM scores and FIM gain (motor, cognitive, total). Predictive models were developed using six algorithms (Elastic Net, Extra Trees, LightGBM, Random Forest, XGBoost, and their combinations - Mixed), and accuracy was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²) and root mean squared error (RMSE). Variable importance was quantified using SHAP scores.
resultsMaximum R² values for motor, cognitive, and discharge total FIM scores were 0.776, 0.630, and 0.758, respectively. Those for FIM gain were 0.604, 0.413, and 0.536, respectively. SHAP scores highlighted the importance of age, trunk function, and grip strength. Furthermore, low-difficulty FIM motor subitems were significant predictors of total scores, whereas high-difficulty subitems were critical for FIM gain.
conclusionsXML achieved predictive performance comparable to reported parsimonious ML models, while providing higher clinical granular interpretability. By utilizing SHAP values, this approach overcomes the ‘black box’ nature of standard ML, providing transparent and actionable insights into how individual functional deficits contribute to outcomes. Notably, the predictive accuracy for FIM gain improved significantly compared to previous studies. Even without explicitly incorporating domain knowledge about the relationships between variables, XML was able to generate clinically relevant prediction models that accounted for these relationships. Thus, the examination of ADL prognostic factors using XML is clinically meaningful and has promising implications for real-world clinical applications.
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.