ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and internal validation of an artificial intelligence-driven precision rehabilitation model for ischemic stroke: a retrospective cohort study.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Functional recovery after ischemic stroke varies substantially across patients and stages of care. Conventional rehabilitation planning relies mainly on clinical scales and physician judgment, which may not fully capture the nonlinear interactions among neurological severity, functional status, comorbidities, treatment exposure, and rehabilitation stage. This study aimed to develop and internally validate an artificial intelligence-driven precision rehabilitation model for predicting poor rehabilitation outcome across the continuum of care in patients with ischemic stroke. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 268 patients with ischemic stroke were divided into a training cohort ( Results: Poor rehabilitation outcome occurred in 104 patients (38.8%). In the internal validation cohort, XGBoost showed the best overall performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.862 (95% CI, 0.776-0.923), accuracy of 0.813, sensitivity of 0.806 (95% CI, 0.625-0.926), specificity of 0.816 (95% CI, 0.679-0.912), F1 score of 0.781, and Brier score of 0.139. Calibration analysis showed acceptable agreement between predicted and observed risks. Decision curve analysis indicated greater net clinical benefit than treat-all or treat-none strategies across threshold probabilities of 0.20-0.75. SHAP analysis identified baseline MBI score, baseline NIHSS score, age, structured rehabilitation therapy, rehabilitation stage, and comorbidity burden as the most influential predictors. Model-derived low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups showed poor outcome rates of 12.8%, 34.4%, and 68.6%, respectively. Conclusion: The proposed artificial intelligence-driven model showed favorable discrimination, acceptable calibration, and clinically meaningful risk stratification for ischemic stroke rehabilitation. It may provide a preliminary framework for individualized rehabilitation risk stratification across the continuum of care; however, external multicenter validation and prospective clinical evaluation are required before routine clinical application.
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.