Trial reportNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2026
Identifying treatment-responsive patient subgroups in a neutral clinical trial of Intensive blood pressure reduction in acute intracerebral hemorrhage: A post hoc explainable machine learning analysis.
Trial report in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage (ATACH-2) trial reported no overall benefit from intensive blood pressure (BP) reduction in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), potentially masking benefit in select patient subgroups. We evaluated whether explainable machine learning could identify treatment-arm subgroups in whom BP reduction is associated with improved outcomes. Using the ATACH-2 dataset, we trained an XGBoost model on two-thirds of the control arm (n = 326) to predict 3-month poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale >3). The model was then applied to treatment-arm patients (n = 499) and held-out controls (n = 163). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) quantified individual BP risk contributions, and counterfactual perturbation simulated BP reductions. We applied an exploratory, hypothesis-generating grid search to identify selection strategies yielding the lowest odds ratio (OR) for poor outcome in treatment subgroups versus controls. The model achieved an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.89) in cross-validation and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89) in independent validation. Using a combined SHAP and counterfactual analysis, we identified a candidate treatment-responsive subgroup (n = 56) in whom intensive BP reduction was independently associated with lower odds of poor outcome compared with held-out controls (OR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.08-0.54; p = 0.002). This association remained significant when compared with the subset of held-out controls meeting the same selection criteria. Compared with the remainder of their respective groups, these patients had higher baseline systolic BP, more severe neurological deficits, lower blood glucose levels, and more frequent basal ganglia involvement. These findings highlight the potential of explainable machine learning for precision BP management in acute ICH.
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.