ArticleAcute and critical care2026
Clinical variable-based decision-support model for rapid differentiation of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke at emergency department presentation in South Korea.
Article in Acute and critical care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrompt differentiation between ischemic stroke (IS) and hemorrhagic stroke (HS) is critical because their treatment strategies fundamentally differ. While neuroimaging is essential, clinical decision-making often begins before imaging is completed, and conventional clinical scores have shown inconsistent performance. The objective of this study was therefore to develop and externally validate a machine-learning model that supports HS vs. IS subtype suspicion at emergency department (ED) presentation using only clinical variables.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 2,998 adult patients with a final diagnosis of acute IS or HS treated at three comprehensive stroke centers (July 2020-January 2024). Patients from hospitals A and B comprised the development/internal validation cohort (n=2,418), while patients from hospital C served as an independent external validation cohort (n=580). An extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm was trained using four-fold cross-validation, and feature contributions were assessed using Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values.
resultsInternal validation showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.937 (95% CI, 0.922-0.950) with a sensitivity 0.828, specificity of 0.932, and accuracy of 0.905. Independent external validation yielded an AUROC of 0.841 (95% CI, 0.792-0.883) with a sensitivity 0.758, specificity of 0.789, and accuracy of 0.783. SHAP analysis identified headache and higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale item 1a (level of consciousness) as factors increasing the model output toward HS, whereas atrial fibrillation shifted predictions toward IS.
conclusionsA clinical variable-only model can support early HS vs. IS subtype suspicion at ED presentation among patients managed in an acute-stroke pathway without requiring laboratory tests. Performance decreased on independent external validation, suggesting potential site-related differences and the need for prospective evaluation and calibration. Stroke mimics were not included and should be addressed in future studies.
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.