Evidence Hub

Early Predictive Accuracy of Machine Learning for Hemorrhagic Transformation in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wang B, Jiang B, Liu D, Zhu R

Journal of medical Internet research, 2025

88,197 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background: Hemorrhagic transformation (HT) is commonly detected in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and often leads to poor outcomes. Currently, there is no ideal tool for early prediction of HT risk. Recently, machine learning has gained traction in stroke management, prompting the exploration of predictive models for HT. However, systematic evidence on these models is lacking.

Objective: In this study, we assessed the predictive capability of machine learning models for HT risk in AIS, aiming to inform the development of HT prediction tools.

Methods: We conducted a thorough search of medical databases, such as Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed up until March 2025. The risk of bias was determined through the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Subgroup analysis was performed based on treatment backgrounds, diagnostic criteria, and types of HT.

Results: A total of 83 eligible articles were included, containing 106 models and 88,197 patients with AIS with 9323 HT cases. There were 104 validation sets with a total c-index of 0.832 (95% CI 0.814-0.849), sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.84), and specificity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.81). Subgroup analysis indicated that the combined model achieved superior prediction accuracy. Moreover, we also analyzed the predictive performance of 6 mature models.

Conclusions: Currently, although several prediction methods for HT have been developed, their predictive values are not satisfactory. Fortunately, our…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 88,197 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free