ArticleBrain & spine2026
Admission laboratory parameters for early risk stratification after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a machine learning analysis of real-world data.
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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.