SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2025
Machine learning models for predicting vasospasm following ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebral vasospasm remains a leading cause of delayed cerebral ischemia following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Despite advances in critical care, current monitoring strategies are reactive and non-personalized. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising tool to anticipate vasospasm risk.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies applying ML algorithms to predict clinical or radiological vasospasm. Data were pooled using bivariate and proportional meta-analyses and their quality was assessed with the PROBAST tool.
resultsTwelve studies (2011-2025) encompassing 25 ML models were included. Deep learning achieved the highest sensitivity (mean: 97.6%) and AUC-ROC (0.97), outperforming regression, ensemble, and SVM methods in sensitivity (p = 0.003) but not in specificity or AUC. SVM models showed the highest NPV (85%), while ensemble and regression methods had superior PPV. Across cohort types, deep learning consistently delivered high accuracy and generalizability, although with greater PPV variability. Bivariate analysis confirmed that artificial neural networks and random forest models achieved favorable sensitivity-specificity trade-offs. Risk of bias was low to moderate, with most concerns related to patient selection and lack of external validation.
conclusionML models, particularly deep learning and ensemble methods, demonstrate promising accuracy in predicting vasospasm after aSAH. These tools may enable earlier, personalized interventions; however, methodological heterogeneity, limited external validation, and lack of prospective trials currently hinder clinical adoption.
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.