ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
A Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network Framework for Multi-Horizon Stroke Mortality Prediction.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
Abstract
Background: Machine learning models for stroke mortality prediction typically treat each time horizon independently and use flat tabular features that ignore the relational structure of electronic health records (EHRs). In this pilot study, we leveraged graph-based machine learning models to predict post stroke all-cause-mortality across three different time horizons. Methods: We developed Stroke Temporal Heterogeneous Graph (StrokeTHG), a heterogeneous graph neural network model for simultaneous multi-horizon stroke mortality prediction (30-day, 90-day, 1-year) using EHR data from Penn State Health System. The model encodes various relations among EHR entities (e.g., patient, diagnosis, comorbidity) and temporal encoding of admission time to better predict stroke mortality. We compared our proposed approach against various baseline methods, including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost. We also performed ablation and subgroup analyses, evaluated the quality of learned graph embeddings, and assessed the importance of different edge types in the graph. Results: We included 4,144 stroke patients (mean age 69.2 years; 54.3% men), of whom 3,332 (80.4%) survived their stroke after one year. 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 9.7%, 13.7%, and 19.6%, respectively. Our proposed approach, StrokeTHG, achieved AUROC of 0.872, 0.878, and 0.837 across horizons, outperforming all tabular baselines. At ≥75% specificity, the model identified 5-10 percentage points more mortality cases than the best baseline at each horizon. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistent performance across sex subgroups and the largest discriminative gains in the Age 65-80 stratum. Edge-type ablation identified phenotype-patient and admission-patient edges in the constructed EHR graph as the most influential relational edges for mortality prediction. StrokeTHG embeddings outperformed all graph and matrix factorization baselines under an identical downstream classifier, confirming that performance gains stem from representation quality rather than classifier capacity. Conclusions: StrokeTHG demonstrates that heterogeneous graph representations of EHR data provide a consistent improvement over flat tabular models for multi-horizon stroke mortality prediction, with particular advantage at clinically actionable sensitivity thresholds and novel multi-horizon monotonic prediction capability. This methodological framework may be adaptable to other EHR-based clinical research studies seeking to leverage heterogeneous relational structures for predictive modeling.
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.