Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42620405›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2026

Admission laboratory parameters for early risk stratification after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a machine learning analysis of real-world data.

Anton Früh, Nora Dengler, Cihat Karadag, Paul Pöser, Peter Vajkoczy, Stefan Wolf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anton FrühDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.
Nora DenglerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.
Cihat KaradagDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.
Paul PöserDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.
Peter VajkoczyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.
Stefan WolfDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Early risk stratification is essential for treatment planning and prognostication, yet neurological assessment may be limited in sedated or critically ill patients. Routine admission laboratory parameters may provide additional prognostic information and improve machine learning (ML)-based outcome prediction. Research question: To evaluate the predictive value of routinely obtained admission laboratory parameters for unfavorable neurological outcome after aSAH and to compare different ML algorithms. Material and methods: This retrospective analysis included prospectively collected data from 389 patients with aSAH. Unfavorable outcome was defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) > 2 at 6 months. Four feature sets were analyzed: laboratory values, clinical variables, radiographic features and a combined feature set. Logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost and support vector machine models were evaluated using 5-fold-stratified-cross-validation. Feature importance was assessed using SHAP analysis. Results: Laboratory-only models achieved moderate discrimination, with random forest demonstrating the highest performance (AUC = 0.724). Clinical models showed superior predictive accuracy overall (best AUC = 0.785), whereas radiographic-only models achieved lower performance. The combined feature set achieved the highest discrimination and outperformed the clinical-only model (p = 0.016), whereas laboratory-only and clinical-only discrimination did not differ significantly. The most important laboratory predictors were red blood cell distribution width, leukocyte count, glucose, and C-reactive protein. Discussion and conclusion: Routine admission laboratory parameters carry modest but incremental prognostic information beyond established clinical grading when integrated through non-linear ML, but they do not replace clinical assessment. These single-center findings are hypothesis-generating and require external validation before clinical use.

Indexed as

AdmissionBiomarkerLaboratoryMachine learningNeurological outcomeSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID42620405
PMCPMC13485615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.