ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Machine learning versus conventional grading systems for prognostication in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate prognostication after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) remains challenging. Conventional clinical and radiological grading systems, including the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), Hunt-Hess, and Fisher scales, are widely used but have limited discriminative capacity. This study aimed to systematically compare machine learning (ML)-based prognostic models with conventional grading systems for predicting functional outcomes and mortality after aSAH, and to evaluate factors influencing ML performance.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025. Eligible studies evaluated ML-based models for outcome prediction in adult aSAH patients and reported performance of conventional grading systems. Prognostic discrimination was pooled using random-effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with predefined subgroup analyses.
resultsFourteen studies including 6,247 patients were analyzed. ML models demonstrated good to excellent discrimination, with AUCs ranging from 0.81 to 0.97. The pooled ML AUC for predicting unfavourable neurological outcome was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.89; p < 0.0001), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 96.1%). ML models outperformed conventional grading systems in most studies and showed comparable performance in the remainder. Subgroup analyses confirmed statistically significant prognostic accuracy across clinical-only, imaging-based, and multimodal ML models.
conclusionMachine learning-based prognostic models demonstrate statistically significant and clinically meaningful performance for outcome prediction after aSAH, exceeding conventional grading systems and supporting their role as complementary risk stratification tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42496900What 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.