MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405855546 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-82931-5

Explainable artificial intelligence for stroke prediction through comparison of deep learning and machine learning models

2024· article· en· W4405855546 on OpenAlexaff
Khadijeh Moulaei, Lida Afshari, Reza Moulaei, Babak Sabet, Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, Mohammad Reza Afrash

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityOverfittingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStroke (engine)Receiver operating characteristicMedicineComputer scienceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure to predict stroke promptly may lead to delayed treatment, causing severe consequences like permanent neurological damage or death. Early detection using deep learning (DL) and machine learning (ML) models can enhance patient outcomes and mitigate the long-term effects of strokes. The aim of this study is to compare these models, exploring their efficacy in predicting stroke. This study analyzed a dataset comprising 663 records from patients hospitalized at Hazrat Rasool Akram Hospital in Tehran, Iran, including 401 healthy individuals and 262 stroke patients. A total of eight established ML (SVM, XGB, KNN, RF) and DL (DNN, FNN, LSTM, CNN) models were utilized to predict stroke. Techniques such as 10-fold cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning were implemented to prevent overfitting. The study also focused on interpretability through Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The evaluation of model's performance was based on accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, F1-score, and ROC curve metrics. Among DL models, LSTM showed superior sensitivity at 96.15%, while FNN exhibited better specificity (96.0%), accuracy (96.0%), F1-score (95.0%), and ROC (98.0%) among DL models. For ML models, RF displayed higher sensitivity (99.9%), accuracy (99.0%), specificity (100%), F1-score (99.0%), and ROC (99.9%). Overall, RF outperformed all models, while DL models surpassed ML models in most metrics except for RF. DL models (CNN, LSTM, DNN, FNN) achieved sensitivities from 93.0 to 96.15%, specificities from 80.0 to 96.0%, accuracies from 92.0 to 96.0%, F1-scores from 87.34 to 95.0%, and ROC scores from 95.0 to 98.0%. In contrast, ML models (KNN, XGB, SVM) showed sensitivities between 29.0% and 94.0%, specificities between 89.47% and 96.0%, accuracies between 71.0% and 95.0%, F1-scores between 44.0% and 95.0%, and ROC scores between 64.0% and 95.0%. This study demonstrates the efficacy of DL and ML models in predicting stroke, with the RF models outperforming all others in key metrics. While DL models generally surpassed ML models, RF's exceptional performance highlights the potential of combining these technologies for early stroke detection, significantly improving patient outcomes by preventing severe consequences like permanent neurological damage or death.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations32
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→