MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414552080 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1668816

Explainable machine learning model for predicting the outcome of acute ischemic stroke after intravenous thrombolysis

2025· article· en· W4414552080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Bu, Runlu Cai, Wei Zhang, Xiaohong Tang, Guiyun Cui, Xin Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsThrombolysisOutcome (game theory)Identification (biology)Stroke (engine)Ischemic strokeDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients often experience poor functional outcomes post-intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Novel computational methods leveraging machine learning (ML) architectures increasingly support medical decision-making. We aimed to develop and validate a machine learning model to predict 3-month unfavorable functional outcome after IVT in AIS patients. Methods: = 324). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression selected predictors from clinical/neuroimaging/laboratory variables. Eight ML algorithms (including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting, Multilayer Perceptron, Support Vector Machine, Light Gradient Boosting Machine, Decision Tree, and K-Nearest Neighbors) were trained using 10-fold cross-validation and evaluated on test/external sets via the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall and F1-score. Additionally, the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) interpreted the optimal model. Results: = 282) and 324 patients the external validation cohort. Unfavorable 3-month outcomes (mRS 3-6) occurred in 25.7% and 22.8%, respectively. LASSO regression selected five predictors: the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), atrial fibrillation, and blood glucose. While tree-based methods like XGBoost and LightGBM showed elevated training performance (e.g., XGBoost training AUC = 0.878) but significant drops in validation (AUC = 0.791), LR demonstrated optimal performance: robust training AUC (0.792), minimal validation degradation (AUC = 0.787). LR model was subsequently employed as classification method demonstrating optimal performance with (AUC = 0.777) in the test dataset. External validation confirmed LR's stability (AUC = 0.797). SHAP analysis ranked NLR as the strongest predictor (followed by NIHSS/ASPECTS), with higher values increasing risk. Learning curves indicated no overfitting. A nomogram enabled individualized risk quantification. Conclusion: A parsimonious 5-variable LR model robustly predicts 3-month post-IVT outcomes, combining clinical utility, interpretability, and generalizability. NLR-driven inflammation is critical to prognosis. This tool facilitates early high-risk patient identification for personalized intervention.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207