ArticleEuropean stroke journal2026
Machine learning versus conventional methods for prehospital detection of stroke due to large vessel occlusion or intracranial haemorrhage.
Article in European stroke journal, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAdequate prehospital triage of anterior-circulation LVO (aLVO) or ICH enables direct allocation to appropriate stroke centres. Traditional triage based on clinical scales or logistic regression may miss complex predictor interactions, whereas machine learning approaches may improve diagnostic accuracy. We compared 3 prehospital triage methods to detect a composite outcome of aLVO or ICH using internal-external cross-validation. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe analysed emergency medical services-activated stroke codes (2018-2019) from the Leiden Prehospital Stroke Study and the Prehospital Triage of Patients With Suspected Stroke Study. We compared XGBoost (supervised machine learning [sML]), conventional logistic regression (cLR) and the Rapid Arterial oCclusion Evaluation (RACE) scale using 2-fold internal-external cross-validation. Two variable sets were evaluated: (1) routine prehospital variables (demographics, symptom duration, vital signs, glucose, neurological deficits) and (2) an extended set including medical history, anticoagulant use and point-of-care international normalised ratio. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using balanced accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, Brier scores and calibration plots.
resultsAmong 3320 patients, 538 (16%) had aLVO or ICH. Using routine variables, mean balanced accuracy was 82.1% for sML, 79.0% for cLR and 74.5% for RACE (P < .01). With extended variables, performance improved to 84.4% for sML and 80.7% for cLR (P < .01). The sML model achieved the highest sensitivity (76.7%) and specificity (92.1%). Calibration was good for both models, although Brier scores were lower for cLR.
conclusionXGBoost showed modestly higher discriminative performance than cLR or RACE, while cLR showed better calibration. These findings suggest that machine learning may improve prehospital classification in selected settings, but the absolute gains were limited and require further external validation and prospective implementation studies.
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.