Back

Machine learning and data-driven models for predicting post-stroke dysphagia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mohammadi Yazdi, S.; Motevaselian, M.; Khatami, S.; Radfar, N.; jourahmad, z.; Perez, H. A.

2026-07-17 neurology
10.64898/2026.07.15.26358113 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Post-stroke dysphagia (PSD) contributes to aspiration, pneumonia, malnutrition, prolonged hospitalization and mortality. We evaluated the discrimination, validity and readiness of machine learning and data-driven prediction models for PSD-related outcomes. Methods: Following a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD420261419259), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception through June 7, 2026. Eligible studies developed or validated multivariable prediction models for PSD-related outcomes in adults with stroke. We used PROBAST and PROBAST+AI to assess risk of bias and applicability and TRIPOD+AI to evaluate reporting. Area under the curve (AUC) estimates were pooled on the logit scale with random-effects models. Results: Twenty-four studies were included and ten contributed to meta-analysis. Four studies predicting early or incident PSD yielded a pooled AUC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.60-0.99; I2 = 95.6%). Pooled AUCs were 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.92) for aspiration or penetration-aspiration and 0.89 (95% CI 0.24-1.00) for severe dysphagia. The exploratory analysis of all ten risk-prediction models produced an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-0.95), but heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 90.3%) and the prediction interval was 0.51-0.99. Every study had high risk of bias because of analysis-domain concerns; calibration and external validation were uncommon. Conclusions: Reported discrimination was often high, but the evidence does not establish reliable performance in care. Independent validation, calibration, complete model reporting and clinical-impact studies are needed before these models guide post-stroke swallowing care. Keywords: Post-stroke dysphagia; Stroke; Deglutition disorders; Machine learning; Clinical prediction model; Area under the curve; Meta-analysis

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.7%
2
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.9%
3
European Journal of Neurology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
4
Stroke
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.2%
5
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
6
Journal of Neurology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Neurology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
9
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
50% of probability mass above
10
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 7%
3.2%
11
Emergency Medicine Journal
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
12
Brain Communications
166 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
13
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.1%
14
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
15
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
16
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
19
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.1%
21
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
22
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
23
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
24
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Age and Ageing
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
28
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 68%
0.6%
29
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%