SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Predictive performance of machine learning models in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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 versus deep learning for screening ischemic stroke among asymptomatic population.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a leading cause of global mortality and disability worldwide. Machine learning (ML) models enhance prognostic accuracy by analysing complex, multidimensional clinical data. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify the gaps in the current ML models, along with methodological and performance outcomes in AIS. Further, the study objective was to identify the most frequently used algorithms and compare their relative effectiveness, thereby supporting future research to develop novel ML-based predictive models for stroke care management. Methods: The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines with PROSPERO registration. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using MeSH keywords. Data extraction captured study characteristics, ML algorithms, and outcome metrics. We used the PROBAST and TRIPOD-AI to assess the qualities and bias of included studies. Meta-analysis of AUC values across ML models were conducted to synthesize model performance used a random-effects model to summarize and analyse the data and assessed heterogeneity ( Results: A total of 14 studies were included in the systematic review, with 12 eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled AUC of ML models was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.91), demonstrating strong predictive performance despite substantial heterogeneity ( Conclusion: ML-based models show potential for improving prognostic assessment in AIS; however, substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations across studies limit the generalizability of pooled performance estimates. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251033217, (Registration number: CRD420251033217).
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.