SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning based prediction models for first stroke in community primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStroke is the third leading cause of death and the fourth leading cause of disability globally, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where the disease burden is increasing significantly. Risk prediction of first-stroke is crucial for stroke prevention. Although artificial intelligence (AI)-based prediction models have rapidly developed in recent years, their clinical utility in primary community healthcare settings remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically review and analyze the application of algorithms, especially machine learning (ML)-based ones, in first-stroke risk prediction models within community settings.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 30 June 2024 for studies developing or validating multivariable stroke risk models for primary care. We analyzed AUC/C-statistic values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted a meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 43 studies encompassing 93 models were included. The Cox regression model was the most common traditional method (n = 32, 74.42% of traditional models). Among ML models, 25 algorithms were identified, with logistic regression being the most frequent (n = 8, 18.60%). The meta-analysis showed a pooled AUC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.81) for the Cox regression model, while logistic regression, random forest, and eXtreme Gradient Boosting models yielded 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.89), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.61-0.93), and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.59-0.94), respectively. Notably, 76.7% of the included studies had a high risk of bias, and 20.9% raised high concerns regarding their applicability to community primary healthcare settings. ML models did not outperform traditional regression models, with significant performance variability observed.
conclusionDespite the increasing use of ML models for first-stroke risk prediction, their clinical utility in community primary healthcare remains unverified. Current ML models show no significant advantage over traditional regression methods and face challenges in algorithm innovation, data standardization, and external validation. Furthermore, the prevalence of methodological flaws and applicability concerns among existing studies underscores the need for caution. Future research should focus on standardized validation and real-world clinical analysis to develop effective stroke prevention tools.
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.