ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Interpretable machine learning-based predictive model for malnutrition in subacute post-stroke patients: an internal and external validation study.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malnutrition is a critical concern associated with increased mortality rates and adverse outcomes in stroke adults undergoing subacute rehabilitation. Despite its clinical significance, predictive tools for assessing malnutrition risk in this population remain limited. This study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning (ML) model to predict malnutrition risk among stroke patients during subacute rehabilitation. Methods: This multicenter study comprised a development cohort of 802 patients from a single institution, which randomly split into training and testing sets at a 7:3 ratio. An external validation cohort of 345 patients was recruited from an independent hospital. Feature selection was conducted using the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression combined with the Boruta algorithm. Eight ML models-Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forests (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM), Support Vector Machines (SVM), k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Neural Network (NNet), and CatBoost (CAT)-were trained utilizing five-fold cross-validation. These models were evaluated using metrics such as discrimination, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Model interpretability was assessed via Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis. Results: The CAT algorithm exhibited superior predictive model in the training and testing sets, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.848 (95% CI: 0.817-0.879) and 0.806 (95% CI = 0.752-0.861), respectively. Calibration metrics underscored the model's robustness and DCA emphasized its clinical utility. External validation further corroborated the generalizability of the CAT model, demonstrating an AUC of 0.772; (95% CI: 0.723-0.820). SHAP analysis identified age, handgrip strength, and Barthel Index (BI) score as the most significant predictors of malnutrition. Conclusion: This study successfully developed and validated an ML model for efficiently screening malnutrition risk in patients with subacute stroke. The interpretable CAT-based model serves as a clinically actionable tool, enabling early stratification of malnutrition risk in subacute stroke patients. This facilitates the implementation of targeted nutritional interventions and personalized rehabilitation strategies, potentially improving outcomes in this vulnerable population.
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.