ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
Artificial intelligence applied to development of predictive stability model for intracranial aneurysms.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Cerebral Aneurysm Management: Integrating Imaging, Hemodynamics, and Clinical Decision Support.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Complex Anatomy, Advanced Techniques: Microsurgical Clipping of a Ruptured Hypophyseal Artery Aneurysm.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to develop multiple machine learning models to predict the risk of early intracranial aneurysms (IAs) rupture, evaluate and compare the performance of predictive models.
methodsInformation related to patients diagnosed with IA by CT angiography and clinicians in Central hospital of Dalian University of Technology from January 2010 to June 2022 was collected, including clinical characteristics, blood indicators and IA morphological parameters. IA with rupture or maximum growth ≥ 0.5 mm within 1 month of first diagnosis was considered unstable. The relevant factors affecting IA stability were screened and predictive models were developed based on the above three levels, including random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under curve (AUC) value were used to evaluate the predictive models.
resultsA total of 989 IA patients were included in the study, including 561 stable patients and 428 unstable patients. For RF models, the training set showed that sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and the AUC values were 72.8-83.7%, 76.9-86.9%, 75.1-84.1% and 0.748 (0.719-0.778)-0.839 (0.814-0.864), respectively; after test set validation, the results were 71.9-78.8%, 75.0-84.0%, 73.6-81.1% and 0.734 (0.688-0.781)-0.809 (0.768-0.850), respectively. For SVM models, the training set were 66.0-80.2%, 76.5-85.5%, 71.7-82.3%, 0.712 (0.682-0.743)-0.913 (0.884-0.924), respectively; the test set were 44.2-78.3%, 63.4-84.4%, 57.9-80.9%, 0.699 (0.651-0.747)-0.806 (0.765-0.848), respectively. For ANN models, the training set were 66.8-83.0%, 75.3-82.3%, 71.6-82.1%, 0.783 (0.757-0.808)-0.897 (0.879-0.914); the test set were 63.1-76.3%, 65.5-84.0%, 64.4-80.6%, 0.680 (0.593-0.694)-0.860 (0.821-0.899). The results of variable importance showed that age, white blood cell count (WBC) and uric acid (UA) played an important role in predicting the stability of IA.
conclusionsThe predictive stability models of IA based on three artificial intelligence methods shows good clinical application. Age, WBC and UA played an important role in predicting the IA stability, and were potentially important predictors.
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.