ArticleBMC neurology2024
Development of machine learning-based models for predicting risk factors in acute cerebral infarction patients: a clinical retrospective study.
Article in BMC neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based feature selection and classification for cerebral infarction screening: an experimental study.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to develop machine learning-based models for predicting acute cerebral infarction (ACI) in patients.
methodsWe extracted the data of ACI patients and non-ACI patients (as control) from two hospitals. The Lasso algorithm was employed to select the most crucial features associated with ACI. Five machine learning algorithms-based models were trained, which was performed with 10-fold cross-validation. Then, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, and F1-score were calculated in the training models. Accordingly, the training models with excellent performance was selected as the final predictive model. The relative importance of variables was analyzed and ranked.
resultsA total of 150 patients were diagnosed with ACI (50.00%), with a higher proportion of males (70.67% vs. 44.00%) compared to the non-ACI patients. The logistic regression model exhibited a good performance in predicting ACI in the training set, as evidenced by its highest AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and F1-score. Furthermore, feature importance analysis showed that blood glucose, gender, smoking history, serum homocysteine, folic acid, and C-reactive protein were the top six crucial variables of the logistic regression.
conclusionsIn our work, the ACI risk prediction model developed by the logistic regression exhibited excellent performance. This could contribute to the identification of risk variables for ACI patients and enables clinicians timely and effective interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.