ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Predicting early neurological deterioration in acute branch atheromatous disease without reperfusion therapy: a machine learning model.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
Background: Acute branch atheromatous disease (BAD) is one of the leading contributors to morbidity and disability in Asia, and early neurological deterioration (END) is common in affected patients. This study aimed to establish machine learning models to predict the risk of END in patients without reperfusion therapy. Methods: Patients with acute BAD who did not receive reperfusion therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Core predictive features were selected by LASSO regression with bootstrap stability assessment, and we used seven machine learning algorithms to build models. XGBoost was selected based on validation performance, nested cross-validation, and 1,000-iteration bootstrap validation. A spline logistic regression model served as the non-linear baseline. SHAP analysis was used to explain the model and develop a simple scoring system. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and clinical utility was evaluated using decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: A total of 369 patients were included in our research. We screened predictive factors with LASSO regression and ultimately identified five key variables. These included maximum infarct area, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), number of infarct slices, admission systolic blood pressure (SBP), and neutrophil count. The XGBoost model achieved the best overall performance, with AUC of 0.927 in the training set and 0.846 in the validation set. Nested cross-validation yielded an unbiased AUC of 0.866 (95% CI: 0.817-0.925), and bootstrap validation produced a mean OOB AUC of 0.855 (95% CI: 0.760-0.941). The scoring system stratified patients into low (0-6 points), intermediate (7-13 points), and high (14-20 points) risk groups. DCA demonstrated favorable clinical utility. SHAP analysis also indicated that maximum infarct area and LDH were the top two predictors of END. Conclusion: An XGBoost-based prediction model and a simple scoring system, integrating maximum infarct area, LDH, number of infarct slices, admission SBP, and neutrophil count, provide reliable END risk prediction for acute BAD patients without reperfusion therapy.
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.