ArticleStroke2026
Accuracy of Machine Learning to Predict Upper-Limb Outcome Within the First 72 Hours Poststroke.
Article in Stroke, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely and accurate prediction of poststroke motor outcome is important for efficient rehabilitation planning and resource allocation. Existing bedside models for predicting upper-limb outcome after stroke require further refinement to be effectively implemented in stroke units within the first 72 hours. This study aimed to develop and internally validate a machine learning model to predict the 6-month Action Research Arm Test score using simple clinical tests commonly assessed within the first 3 days poststroke.
methodsIn 296 first-ever ischemic stroke patients pooled from 4 prospective Dutch cohort studies across 44 centers (2000-2019), we compared the cross-validated prediction performance of multiple eXtreme Gradient Boosting models using different sets of bedside clinical tests to predict the 6-month Action Research Arm Test outcome (0-57). We then selected the model with the minimal predictor set that best balanced bedside feasibility and accuracy and validated it within 72 hours poststroke on a test data set (n=32) from the same cohort using median absolute error as the evaluation metric.
resultsA model incorporating Shoulder Abduction from the Motricity Index, voluntary finger extension, Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity, and total National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score as bedside tests, showed the best tradeoff between model simplicity and predictive accuracy (median absolute error, 5.9 on the 0-57 score; interquartile range, 2.9-12.9).
conclusionsOur model predicts the 6-month Action Research Arm Test score using a minimal set of bedside clinical tests collected within the first 3 days after stroke, achieving a median absolute error below the Action Research Arm Test minimal clinically important difference of 6 points.
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.