ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning-based prediction model for post-stroke cerebral-cardiac syndrome: a risk stratification study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Electrophysiological Signals for Machine Learning-Aided Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Gastrointestinal dysfunction after brain injury: Mechanisms and the role of the brain-gut axis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Association between geriatric nutritional risk index and fecal incontinence in individuals with stroke: mediating roles of systemic immune inflammation index and oxidative balance scores.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebral-cardiac syndrome (CCS) is a severe cardiac complication following acute ischemic stroke, often associated with adverse outcomes. This study developed and validated a machine learning (ML) model to predict CCS using clinical, laboratory, and pre-extracted imaging features. A retrospective cohort of 511 post-stroke patients was analyzed. Data on demographics, laboratory results, imaging findings, and medications were collected. CCS diagnosis was based on cardiac dysfunction occurring after stroke, excluding pre-existing cardiac diseases. Five machine learning models, including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), XGBoost, and Deep Neural Network, were trained on 80% of the data and tested on the remaining 20%. Discrimination was assessed by AUC (95% CI), calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow test and Brier score, and thresholds by Youden's index. Model interpretability was evaluated using SHAP. On the test set, XGBoost achieved the highest discrimination (AUC 0.879; 95% CI 0.807-0.942), accuracy 0.825, precision 0.844, recall 0.675, and F1 score 0.750. Random forest followed closely (AUC 0.866; accuracy 0.845; precision 0.962; recall 0.625; F1 0.758). SVM and logistic regression yielded AUCs of 0.853 and 0.818, respectively. Calibration was optimal for SVM (HL p > 0.05; Brier 0.126) and random forest (HL p > 0.05; Brier 0.131). SHAP analysis identified D-dimer, ACEI/ARB use, HbA1c, C-reactive protein, and prothrombin time as top predictors. ML-based models accurately predict early CCS in ischemic stroke patients. XGBoost offers superior discrimination, while SVM and random forest demonstrate better calibration. Incorporation of these models into clinical workflows may enhance risk stratification and guide targeted preventive strategies.
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.