Predicting Risk of Stroke From Lab Tests Using Machine Learning Algorithms: Development and Evaluation of Prediction Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke, a cerebrovascular disease, is one of the major causes of death. It causes significant health and financial burdens for both patients and health care systems. One of the important risk factors for stroke is health-related behavior, which is becoming an increasingly important focus of prevention. Many machine learning models have been built to predict the risk of stroke or to automatically diagnose stroke, using predictors such as lifestyle factors or radiological imaging. However, there have been no models built using data from lab tests. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to apply computational methods using machine learning techniques to predict stroke from lab test data. METHODS: We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data sets with three different data selection methods (ie, without data resampling, with data imputation, and with data resampling) to develop predictive models. We used four machine learning classifiers and six performance measures to evaluate the performance of the models. RESULTS: We found that accurate and sensitive machine learning models can be created to predict stroke from lab test data. Our results show that the data resampling approach performed the best compared to the other two data selection techniques. Prediction with the random forest algorithm, which was the best algorithm tested, achieved an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve of 0.96, 0.97, 0.96, 0.75, 0.99, and 0.97, respectively, when all of the attributes were used. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive model, built using data from lab tests, was easy to use and had high accuracy. In future studies, we aim to use data that reflect different types of stroke and to explore the data to build a prediction model for each type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".