MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206955470 · doi:10.2196/32508

Machine Learning Models for Predicting Influential Factors of Early Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Registry-Based Study

2022· article· en· W4206955470 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Po-Yuan Su, Yi‐Chia Wei, Hao Luo, Chi‐Hung Liu, Wen‐Yi Huang, Kuan‐Fu Chen, Ching‐Po Lin, Hung‐Yu Wei, Tsong‐Hai Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChang Gung Medical Foundation
KeywordsMachine learningRandom forestMedicineArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkStroke (engine)Gradient boostingReceiver operating characteristicModified Rankin ScaleSupport vector machineResamplingComputer scienceIschemic strokeInternal medicineEngineeringIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Timely and accurate outcome prediction plays a vital role in guiding clinical decisions on acute ischemic stroke. Early condition deterioration and severity after the acute stage are determinants for long-term outcomes. Therefore, predicting early outcomes is crucial in acute stroke management. However, interpreting the predictions and transforming them into clinically explainable concepts are as important as the predictions themselves. OBJECTIVE: This work focused on machine learning model analysis in predicting the early outcomes of ischemic stroke and used model explanation skills in interpreting the results. METHODS: Acute ischemic stroke patients registered on the Stroke Registry of the Chang Gung Healthcare System (SRICHS) in 2009 were enrolled for machine learning predictions of the two primary outcomes: modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at hospital discharge and in-hospital deterioration. We compared 4 machine learning models, namely support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), light gradient boosting machine (LGBM), and deep neural network (DNN), with the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Further, 3 resampling methods, random under sampling (RUS), random over sampling, and the synthetic minority over-sampling technique, dealt with the imbalanced data. The models were explained based on the ranking of feature importance and the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). RESULTS: RF performed well in both outcomes (discharge mRS: mean AUC 0.829, SD 0.018; in-hospital deterioration: mean AUC 0.710, SD 0.023 on original data and 0.728, SD 0.036 on resampled data with RUS for imbalanced data). In addition, DNN outperformed other models in predicting in-hospital deterioration on data without resampling (mean AUC 0.732, SD 0.064). In general, resampling contributed to the limited improvement of model performance in predicting in-hospital deterioration using imbalanced data. The features obtained from the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), white blood cell differential counts, and age were the key features for predicting discharge mRS. In contrast, the NIHSS total score, initial blood pressure, having diabetes mellitus, and features from hemograms were the most important features in predicting in-hospital deterioration. The SHAP summary described the impacts of the feature values on each outcome prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models are feasible in predicting early stroke outcomes. An enriched feature bank could improve model performance. Initial neurological levels and age determined the activity independence at hospital discharge. In addition, physiological and laboratory surveillance aided in predicting in-hospital deterioration. The use of the SHAP explanatory method successfully transformed machine learning predictions into clinically meaningful results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207