ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Development and validation of a machine learning model for predicting adverse prognosis in Wallerian degeneration patients based on clinical and imaging data.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
Background: Wallerian degeneration (WD) is a neurodegenerative change that often leads to irreversible neurological dysfunction in the central nervous system, resulting in poor prognosis. Currently, there is a lack of predictive tools capable of estimating the risk of poor prognosis in WD patients. This study aims to develop a machine learning-based predictive model to assess the risk of poor prognosis in WD patients, with the outcome measure of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) assessed at least 3 months after WD diagnosis by imaging. Methods: The data for this study were sourced from Xinhua Hospital, affiliated with Dalian University. Clinical patient data were randomly split into a training set and a validation set in a 7/3 ratio. Based on the AIC/BIC criteria, the Boruta algorithm and multivariable logistic regression were used for variable selection, and eight machine learning models were constructed. The models were evaluated for discrimination, predictive accuracy, and clinical benefit using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Additionally, SHAP values were used to systematically evaluate feature importance in the best-performing machine learning model. Results: A total of 285 WD patients were included in the study, with a median age of 63 years. Among them, 157 (55.09%) were male and 128 (44.91%) were female, and 161 (56.49%) patients had poor prognosis. Ten candidate predictors for poor prognosis in WD were identified through analysis: diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, NIHSS score, medulla oblongata, periventricular region, centrum semiovale, subcortical volume 1,000, and the severity of WD. Seven of the ten predictors showed statistical significance, while three demonstrated a borderline association. Among the evaluated machine learning models, the AdaBoost model (AUC = 0.880) demonstrated the most stable performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical benefit. SHAP analysis indicated that NIHSS score, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension made significant contributions to predicting poor prognosis in WD patients. Conclusion: Our study successfully developed and validated a machine learning predictive model that integrates clinical indicators and imaging data to estimate the risk of poor prognosis in WD patients. This model may assist clinicians in identifying high-risk individuals and provide evidence-based guidance for early intervention and personalized management.
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.