MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416921845 · doi:10.1161/svi270000_029

Abstract 029: A Comparison of Machine Learning Models for ICH Prognostication: An Analysis of ATACH‐2 and Qatar Stroke Database

2025· article· en· W4416921845 on OpenAlexaff
Abdul Rahman H Ali, Umar T Ayub, Hasan Naveed, Naveed Akhtar, Adnan I. Qureshi, Ashfaq Shuaib

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestBrier scoreDiscriminative modelTest setLeverage (statistics)Data setPredictive modellingSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple prognostic scores have been developed to predict morbidity and mortality in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage(sICH). These scoring models were traditionally based on statistical methods involving a limited set of variables. Machine learning (ML) has enabled the development of prognostic models for spontaneous ICH which can leverage much more data. We trained ML models on two distinct datasets: (1) Qatar dataset only, and (2) a combined dataset consisting of Qatar and ATACH datasets. Model validation was conducted separately on the Qatar and ATACH test sets, providing insights into model performance within and across study populations. By incorporating inpatient variables into model development, we leveraged more information. For 90‐day mortality prediction, the RF model trained on the combined dataset demonstrated superior AUC on the ATACH test set (0.945) compared to the model trained only on Qatari data (0.896). Similarly, XBG showed significant improvement in AUC from 0.889 to 0.950 when trained on the combined dataset. RF model gave the best balance of high AUC + low Brier across both test sets (ATACH and Qatar). For functional outcome prediction, a similar trend was observed. The RF model trained on the combined dataset had improved prediction (AUC 0.878 vs 0.841), and so did the XGB model trained on the combined dataset (AUC 0.885 vs 0.821). For 90‐day functional outcomes, XGBoost (trained on combined dataset) had the best discriminative power and the best calibration. Amongst the different machine learning models tested, Random Forest (RF) demonstrated the most balanced performance, achieving high metrics across both mortality and functional outcomes. When comparing the models trained exclusively on Qatari data versus those trained on the combined dataset (Qatar + ATACH), the combined dataset models generally showed improved generalization. This is an interesting observation given our datasets were very diverse with patients from multiple ethnicities, diverse backgrounds, and having different risk profiles. It also indicates that models that are trained on a more diverse patient population capture broader underlying clinical patterns and ehance their applicability to diverse patient populations. Our study design mirrors a realworld deployment scenario in which a model developed at a single centre is transported to external cohorts, while still preventing any information leakage from test data. Future studies can involve federated learning approaches to big data. image

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207