ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Early prediction of 3-month functional outcome after acute ischemic stroke: an explainable model based on routine clinical data.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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: Accurate early prediction of 3-month functional outcome after acute ischemic stroke is essential for prognostic communication, early management planning, and resource allocation. However, clinically applicable and interpretable prediction tools based on routinely collected data remain limited. Methods: In this single-center retrospective prediction-model study, we analyzed 770 adults with acute ischemic stroke admitted within 24 h of symptom onset. Baseline clinical and early laboratory variables were collected. After an 80/20 train-test split, key predictors were selected using cross-validated least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) in the training set. Several supervised learning models were developed and compared. Model discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were evaluated. The final gradient boosting machine (GBM) model was interpreted using TreeSHAP, and an online Shiny-based calculator was developed. Results: LASSO identified 12 predictors. Test-set discrimination was similar across models, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.854 to 0.867. The final GBM achieved AUCs of 0.910 in the training set and 0.872 in the test set, with corresponding areas under the precision-recall curve of 0.814 and 0.741. Calibration was satisfactory in both sets. SHAP analyses identified NIHSS, age, and C-reactive protein as dominant contributors, showing predominantly non-linear effects with limited interaction strength. Conclusion: An explainable model based on routinely collected clinical data showed good discrimination and calibration in internal validation for predicting 3-month functional outcome after AIS. Independent external validation is required before the model can be considered for 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.