ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Establishment of a machine learning prediction model for Wallerian degeneration after ischemic stroke.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Wallerian degeneration (WD) is a common and clinically significant complication of ischemic stroke (IS). Due to the multifactorial and nonlinear characteristics of its underlying mechanisms, accurately identifying high-risk patients early remains challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning (ML) model to predict WD after IS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 269 patients with IS, all admitted to the Xinhua Hospital of Dalian University. The patients were randomly divided into a training set (70%) and an internal validation set (30%). Thirty demographic, imaging, and laboratory variables were assessed, and predictive features were selected through Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression, followed by confirmation using multivariate logistic regression. Nine ML algorithms were constructed and compared. The best-performing model was interpreted using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Results: Among the 269 patients, 35.32% (95/269) of IS patients developed WD. LASSO regression selected eight candidate predictors (six reaching statistical significance in multivariate logistic regression; MCA and PCA retained based on LASSO selection and biological relevance): smoking history, hyperlipidemia, standard antiplatelet therapy, achieving LDL target with oral statins, maximum cross-sectional area of the stroke, middle cerebral artery (MCA), posterior cerebral artery (PCA), and the number of stroke-affected layers. Within the study population, the Random Forest model showed internally favorable predictive performance (training AUC = 0.946; validation AUC = 0.856) and reasonable internal consistency, surpassing AdaBoost, Logistic Regression, Lasso, Decision Tree, KNN, GaussianNB, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Through SHAP analysis, this study quantified and visualized the contribution of each predictive variable to the Random Forest model's prediction of the occurrence of WD, identifying key factors such as smoking history, MCA, and PCA, and revealing their interactions, thereby enhancing the model's interpretability for research purposes. Conclusion: We developed and validated an interpretable Random Forest model with potential for predicting the occurrence of WD. By integrating demographic, imaging, and laboratory features, this model provides an internally validated framework that shows promise for early risk assessment, with potential to support personalized management pending external validation.
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.