MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412347863 · doi:10.2196/69282

Combining Machine Learning With Real-World Data to Identify Gaps in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Feasibility Study Using the Prospective German Stroke Registry and the National Acute Ischemic Stroke Guidelines

2025· article· en· W4412347863 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S Müller, Susanne Diekmann, M Wenzel, Horst K. Hahn, Johannes Tuennerhoff, Ulrike Ernemann, Florian Hennersdorf, Max Westphal, Sven Poli

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisGuidelineStroke (engine)Observational studyTissue plasminogen activatorRandom forestMEDLINELeverage (statistics)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicineMachine learningInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) serve as essential tools for guiding clinicians in providing appropriate patient care. However, clinical practice does not always reflect CPGs. This is particularly critical in acute diseases requiring immediate treatment, such as acute ischemic stroke, one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Adherence to CPGs improves patient outcomes, yet guidelines may not address all patient scenarios, resulting in variability in treatment decisions. Identifying such gaps would augment CPGs but is challenging when using traditional methods. Objective: This study aims to leverage real-world data coupled with machine learning (ML) techniques to systematically identify and quantify gaps in German thrombolysis-in-stroke guidelines. Methods: We analyzed observational data from the German Stroke Registry - Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET), a prospective national registry involving 18,069 patients from 25 stroke centers in whom endovascular treatment of a large vessel occlusion was attempted between 2015 and 2023. Key variables included demographic, clinical and imaging information, treatment details, and outcomes. A random forest model was used to predict intravenous thrombolysis treatment decisions based on three different sets of features: (1) guideline-recommended features, (2) clinician-selected features, and (3) features as documented in the GSR-ET before thrombolytic treatment. Feature importance scores, permutation importance, and Shapley Additive Explanations values were used, with clinician guidance, to interpret the model and identify key factors associated with guideline deviations and independent clinician judgments. Results: Of all GSR-ET patients, 13,440 (74.4%) were analyzed after excluding those with incomplete or implausible data. The random forest model's performance, measured by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, was 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73), 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75), and 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78) for the guideline-recommended, clinician-selected, and GSR-ET feature sets, respectively. Across all sets, time from symptom onset to admission was the most important predictor of thrombolysis treatment decisions. Age, which according to the German guidelines is not to be considered for thrombolysis administration, emerged as a significant predictor in the GSR-ET feature set, suggesting a potential gap between guidelines and clinical practice. Conclusions: In our study, we introduce an innovative approach that combines real-world data with ML techniques to identify discrepancies between CPGs and actual clinical decision-making. Using intravenous thrombolysis in large vessel occlusion stroke as a model, our findings suggest that treatment decisions may be influenced by factors not explicitly included in the current German guideline, such as patient age and pre-stroke functional status. This approach may help uncover clinically relevant variables for potential inclusion in future guideline refinements.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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