ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Research on predicting risk factors for re-bleeding in the acute phase of intracerebral hemorrhage using machine learning algorithms.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate risk factors for rebleeding in patients during the acute phase of intracerebral hemorrhage, compare the predictive performance of various machine learning models, and develop an optimal predictive model based on SHAP interpretation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical data from 368 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage was conducted. First, the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the rebleeding group with the non-rebleeding group; Lasso regression was then adopted to screen predictive factors. Based on the six core variables identified, the 10-fold cross-validation performance of nine models, XGBoost, logistic regression, LightGBM, random forest, AdaBoost, decision tree, GBDT, Gaussian Naive Bayes, and k-nearest neighbors, was compared. The most effective GBDT algorithm was used as the foundation, and four additional potential variables were incorporated based on clinical relevance to construct a final GBDT model comprising 10 variables. Bootstrap resampling (1,000 times) was used to calculate the confidence interval for the model's AUC. Calibration curves and decision curves were employed to evaluate the model's calibration and clinical utility, while SHAP values were utilized for global and local interpretation. SHAP dependency plots were generated for each feature, and a predictive website was ultimately developed based on this model. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the history of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, hematoma morphology, intraventricular hemorrhage, body temperature, white blood cell count, time from onset to CT scan, hematoma volume, Hematoma Heterogeneity Index (HII), GCS score, lactate, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide ( Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective study, a 10-variable GBDT model accurately predicted early rebleeding risk after acute intracerebral hemorrhage, showing stable Bootstrap performance and improved interpretability via SHAP, which can aid early detection of high-risk patients.
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.