Prediction of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke Using Registry Data and Machine Learning Methods: The Erlangen Stroke Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been multiple efforts toward individual prediction of recurrent strokes based on structured clinical and imaging data using machine learning algorithms. Some of these efforts resulted in relatively accurate prediction models. However, acquiring clinical and imaging data is typically possible at provider sites only and is associated with additional costs. Therefore, we developed recurrent stroke prediction models based solely on data easily obtained from the patient at home. METHODS: Data from 384 patients with ischemic stroke were obtained from the Erlangen Stroke Registry. Patients were followed at 3 and 12 months after first stroke and then annually, for about 2 years on average. Multiple machine learning algorithms were applied to train predictive models for estimating individual risk of recurrent stroke within 1 year. Double nested cross-validation was utilized for conservative performance estimation and models' learning capabilities were assessed by learning curves. Predicted probabilities were calibrated, and relative variable importance was assessed using explainable artificial intelligence techniques. RESULTS: The best model achieved the area under the curve of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64-0.76) and relatively good probability calibration. The most predictive factors included patient's family and housing circumstances, rehabilitative measures, age, high calorie diet, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy, number of family doctor's home visits, and patient's mental state. CONCLUSIONS: Developing fairly accurate models for individual risk prediction of recurrent ischemic stroke within 1 year solely based on registry data is feasible. Such models could be applied in a home setting to provide an initial risk assessment and identify high-risk patients early.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".