
==== Front
BMC Neurol
BMC Neurol
BMC Neurology
1471-2377
BioMed Central London

3849
10.1186/s12883-024-03849-z
Research
Prediction of poststroke independent walking using machine learning: a retrospective study
Tang Zhiqing 12
Su Wenlong 124
Liu Tianhao 12
Lu Haitao 12
Liu Ying 12
Li Hui 23
Han Kaiyue 12
Moneruzzaman Md. 12
Long Junzi 12
Liao Xingxing 12
Zhang Xiaonian 12
Shan Lei 12
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8193-4101
Zhang Hao crrczh2020@163.com

1234
1 https://ror.org/013xs5b60 grid.24696.3f 0000 0004 0369 153X School of Rehabilitation, Capital Medical University, 10 Jiaomen North Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100068 China
2 https://ror.org/02bpqmq41 grid.418535.e 0000 0004 1800 0172 Beijing Bo’ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing, China
3 https://ror.org/0207yh398 grid.27255.37 0000 0004 1761 1174 Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province China
4 University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Jinan, Shandong Province China
10 9 2024
10 9 2024
2024
24 33212 2 2024
3 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

Accurately predicting the walking independence of stroke patients is important. Our objective was to determine and compare the performance of logistic regression (LR) and three machine learning models (eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Random Forest (RF)) in predicting walking independence at discharge in stroke patients, as well as to explore the variables that predict prognosis.

Methods

778 (80% for the training set and 20% for the test set) stroke patients admitted to China Rehabilitation Research Center between February 2020 and January 2023 were retrospectively included. The training set was used for training models. The test set was used to validate and compare the performance of the four models in terms of area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and F1 score.

Results

Among the three ML models, the AUC of the XGBoost model is significantly higher than that of the SVM and RF models (P < 0.001, P = 0.024, respectively). There was no significant difference in the AUCs between the XGBoost model and the LR model (0.891 vs. 0.880, P = 0.560). The XGBoost model demonstrated superior accuracy (87.82% vs. 86.54%), sensitivity (50.00% vs. 39.39%), PPV (73.68% vs. 73.33%), NPV (89.78% vs. 87.94%), and F1 score (59.57% vs. 51.16%), with only slightly lower specificity (96.09% vs. 96.88%). Together, the XGBoost model and the stepwise LR model identified age, FMA-LE at admission, FAC at admission, and lower limb spasticity as key factors influencing independent walking.

Conclusion

Overall, the XGBoost model performed best in predicting independent walking after stroke. The XGBoost and LR models together confirm that age, admission FMA-LE, admission FAC, and lower extremity spasticity are the key factors influencing independent walking in stroke patients at hospital discharge.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Keywords

Independent walking
Stroke
Logistic regression
eXtreme gradient boosting
Machine learning
the general program of China Rehabilitation Research Center2023ZX-14 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

Stroke is a major problem in China due to its high morbidity, mortality and disability [1]. Even with timely treatment in the acute phase, patients may still be disabled and require rehabilitation, resulting in a high economic burden [2]. A significant portion of the cost is directly attributable to the inability of stroke survivors to walk independently [3]. 40% of stroke patients who are initially unable to walk are either ambulatory or require assistance with walking three months after stroke [4]. The ability to walk independently is a key factor in a patient’s daily activities and quality of life, and regaining the ability to walk independently becomes an important goal in the rehabilitation of stroke patients with hemiplegia [5–7]. It is critical to accurately predict the subsequent recovery of walking ability in stroke patients who are unable to walk independently at the time of admission to rehabilitation [8]. In this way, clinicians and therapists can provide patients with prognosis, goal setting, treatment selection, and discharge planning, and based on accurate prediction of independent walking, the government or the patient’s family can effectively provide appropriate socioeconomic support and health care resources [9, 10].

In the field of stroke rehabilitation, studies on predictive models for walking recovery have been a hot topic [3, 11, 12]. However, some of the predictive models that have been developed are too complex to be used in a clinical setting. Therefore, there is a need to develop simple, reliable, and feasible models for predicting independent walking that can be applied to stroke patients in inpatient rehabilitation. Logistic regression (LR) has been widely used in prognostic studies of stroke patients. LR measures the relationship between a categorical dependent variable and one or more independent variables by using a probability score as the predictive value of the dependent variable [13]. LR is commonly used in predictive modeling of dichotomous outcomes in health care [14]. However, it has several drawbacks, including easy underfitting, difficulty in handling nonlinear relationships, sensitivity to outliers, and possibly poor classification accuracy [15]. Therefore, there may be limitations in applying LR to predictive modeling of prognosis in stroke patients.

As a scientific and mature modeling method, machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in epidemiological research and medicine [16, 17]. With the increasing complexity and number of data sets available, as well as multi-factor data from a variety of sources, the ML is considered to have advantages over traditional regression models [18, 19], including ease of analysis, the ability to consider a large number of variables simultaneously, and to capture complex interactions between variables.

The eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Random Forest (RF) are the more mature and widely used ML modeling algorithms. The XGBoost can be used to solve supervised learning problems using a gradient boosting framework with high accuracy, difficulty in overfitting, and scalability [20, 21]. The XGBoost has been increasingly used in healthcare research to predict or screen for prognostic factors. The SVM are one of the most popular supervised learning algorithms used for pattern recognition, classification, and regression analysis [22]. The RF is an integrated learning method that generates a collection of decision trees branching on random variables. By using the majority principle for all trees and branches, RF can make predictions with high accuracy, less overfitting and strong anti-noise ability [23]. However, the optimal model tends to vary across studies and there is a lack of models that use these ML algorithms to predict independent walking in stroke patients.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the optimal prediction of independent walking at discharge based on clinical data of stroke patients who were unable to walk independently at admission using classical logistic regression methods and three currently accepted ML models (the XGBoost, SVM, and RF model), and to explore variables related to prognosis.

Methods

Overview

This study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee of China Rehabilitation Research Center (approval number 2022-141-02). Informed consent was not obtained as this was a retrospective, hospital-based study.

Participants

Between February 2020 and January 2023, a retrospective cohort of inpatients admitted to and discharged from the neurorehabilitation unit of China Rehabilitation Research Center for first-onset stroke was studied. Patients were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) were aged ≥ 18 years; (2) had a first-ever unilateral cerebral stroke; (3) were unable to walk independently at admission and had a Functional Ambulation Category (FAC) score ≤ 3. Patients were excluded according to the following criteria: (1) had other underlying neurological diseases; (2) had a diagnosis of disturbance of consciousness; (3) had unstable vital signs; (4) length of stay (LOS) < 14 days; (5) had incomplete required data.

Data

In this study, a total of 1033 patients were screened and 778 stroke patients who met the inclusion criteria were ultimately included in the analysis. The following data were collected from 778 stroke patients (21 variables in total): age (years), sex (male or female), medical insurance (yes or no), LOS, time since onset, type of stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), side of stroke (left or right), lesion location (cortical, subcortical, or both), lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (yes or no), emotional disorder (yes or no), cognitive disorder (yes or no), sleep disorder (yes or no), dysphagia (yes or no), aphasia (yes or no), lower limb spasticity (yes or no), FAC score at admission, Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment of the Lower Extremity (FMA-LE) score at admission, Fugl-Meyer Balance Assessment (FMB) score at admission, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission, Barthel Index (BI) score at admission, and FAC score at discharge. The FAC scale has been widely used to assess walking independence in stroke patients, with six levels (0–5). According to previous reports, stroke patients with fac score > 3 at discharge were defined as “independent walking”, otherwise as “non-independent walking” [24]. In this study, we used “independent walking at discharge (yes or no)” as the response variable, and the remaining 20 variables were used for prediction.

Statistical analysis

The IBM SPSS Statistics software version 25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, USA) was used for data analysis. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. For continuous variables, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess data distribution. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation if they fit the normal distribution; otherwise, they were expressed as medians (QL, QU). The χ2 test was used to compare categorical variables, and the Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test was used to compare continuous variables.

In this study, all enrolled patients were randomly divided into two data sets with a split ratio of 4:1. Subsequently, 80% of the patients were used for model training and 20% of the patients were used for model testing. Predictive models were constructed using the walking status at discharge (“independent walking” or “non-independent walking”) as the outcome variable. We used the “autoReg”, “XGBoost”, “e1071”, “randomForest” and “caret” packages in R software version 4.2.2 to develop and test the LR, XGBoost, SVM, and RF models. In constructing the classical LR model, we first screened the training cohort for factors associated with “independent walking” using univariate analyses. Subsequently, factors with P < 0.10 in the univariate analyses were included in the stepwise binary LR analysis. Due to the small number of original variables in this study and the fact that variables of lower importance may also have a beneficial effect on the training of the model, all feature variables were included in the training of the XGBoost, SVM, and RF models. The XGBoost, SVM, and RF models were optimized by either 5-fold cross-validation or hyperparameter tuning. In this study, the “pROC” package was used to plot the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculate the area under curve (AUC) [25, 26]. The AUC was used to comprehensively evaluate the models, and the AUC of the models were compared by the Delong method [27]. The predictive performance of the models was further evaluated in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and F1 score. A two-tailed P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 778 stroke patients randomly assigned to the training set (n = 622) and the test set (n = 156) were finally enrolled in this study (Fig. 1). The characteristics of the training and test sets are shown in Table 1. For all the variables analyzed, there was no significant difference between the training and testing sets. Overall, 107 patients (17.20%) in the training set achieved “independent walking” at discharge and 28 patients (17.95%) in the testing set achieved “independent walking” at discharge.

Fig. 1 Flow-chart of participants enrolled in this study

Table 1 Comparison of the demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients, and of those in the training and testing sets

Variables	Total
(n = 778)	Training
(n = 622)	Testing
(n = 156)	Statistic	P value	
Age, years	59.00 (49.00–68.00)	59.00 (49.00–67.00)	60.50 (48.00–69.00)	Z = 0.672	0.502	
Sex (male), n (%)	541 (69.54)	437 (70.26)	104 (66.67)	χ²=0.759	0.384	
Medical insurance (yes), n (%)	709 (91.13)	571 (91.80)	138 (88.46)	χ²=1.721	0.190	
Length of stay, n (%)				χ²=0.205	0.977	
 ≤ 1 month	156(20.05)	125(20.10)	31(19.87)			
 1–2 months	362(46.53)	291(46.78)	71(45.51)			
 2–3 months	163(20.95)	130(20.90)	33(21.15)			
 ≥ 3 months	97(12.47)	76(12.22)	21(13.46)			
Time since onset, n (%)				χ²=0.005	0.998	
 ≤ 1 month	65 (8.35)	52 (8.36)	13 (8.33)			
 1–3 months	669 (85.99)	535 (86.01)	134 (85.90)			
 ≥ 3 months	44 (5.66)	35 (5.63)	9 (5.77)			
Type of stroke (ischemic), n (%)	418 (53.73)	333 (53.54)	85 (54.49)	χ²=0.045	0.831	
Side of stroke (left), n (%)	427 (54.88)	345 (55.47)	82 (52.56)	χ²=0.424	0.515	
Lesion location, n (%)				χ²=3.766	0.152	
 Cortical	112 (14.4)	86 (13.83)	26 (16.67)			
 Subcortical	462 (59.38)	380 (61.09)	82 (52.56)			
 Both	204 (26.22)	156 (25.08)	48 (30.77)			
Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (yes), n (%)	162 (20.82)	132 (21.22)	30 (19.23)	χ²=0.300	0.584	
Emotional disorder (yes), n (%)	348 (44.73)	278 (44.69)	70 (44.87)	χ²=0.002	0.968	
Cognitive disorder (yes), n (%)	541 (69.54)	423 (68.01)	118 (75.64)	χ²=3.432	0.064	
Sleep disorder (yes), n (%)	262 (33.68)	211 (33.92)	51 (32.69)	χ²=0.085	0.771	
Dysphagia (yes), n (%)	190 (24.42)	157 (25.24)	33 (21.15)	χ²=1.129	0.288	
Aphasia (yes), n (%)	242 (31.11)	184 (29.58)	58 (37.18)	χ²=3.359	0.067	
Lower limb spasticity (yes), n (%)	195 (25.06)	162 (26.05)	33 (21.15)	χ²=1.589	0.208	
FAC at admission, n (%)				χ²=0.733	0.865	
 0	479 (61.57)	380 (61.09)	99 (63.46)			
 1	105 (13.5)	86 (13.83)	19 (12.18)			
 2	90 (11.57)	74 (11.90)	16 (10.26)			
 3	104 (13.37)	82 (13.18)	22 (14.10)			
FMA-LE at admission	11.00 (6.00–19.00)	11.00 (6.00–19.00)	12.00 (5.75-19.00)	Z = 0.266	0.791	
FMB at admission	5.00 (2.00–8.00)	5.00 (2.00–8.00)	5.00 (1.00–8.00)	Z = 0.511	0.611	
NIHSS at admission	9.00 (6.00–13.00)	9.00 (6.00–13.00)	9.50 (6.00–14.00)	Z = 0.708	0.480	
BI at admission	37.50 (20.00–50.00)	40.00 (20.00–50.00)	35.00 (20.00–50.00)	Z = 0.565	0.573	
Independent walking at discharge (yes), n (%)	135 (17.35)	107 (17.20)	28 (17.95)	χ²=0.048	0.826	
Note Data are mean (standard deviation), n (%), or medians (QL, QU)

Logistic regression model

Univariate analyses performed on the training set showed that patients who achieved “independent ambulation” at discharge were significantly different from those who did not on the variables of age, lesion location, lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, cognitive disorder, dysphagia, lower limb spasticity, FAC at admission, FMA-LE at admission, FMB at admission, NIHSS at admission and BI at admission (all P < 0.05) (Table 2). Subsequently, based on the results of the univariate analyses, variables with P < 0.10 were included in the stepwise binary LR analysis. As shown in Table 2, four variables (age, lower limb spasticity, FAC at admission, and FMA-LE at admission) were independent determinants of independent walking at discharge for stroke patients who were unable to walk independently at admission. A logistic regression model is constructed from the four influencing factors examined above, and its expression is logit (P) = − 2.15-0.03 × 1 + 1.32 × 2 + 1.61 × 3 + 0.13 × 4. In the formula, x1, x2, x3 and x4 represent age, no lower limb spasticity, FAC at admission = 3 and FMA-LE at admission, respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test result on the training set was 10.211 (P = 0.251) with 8 degrees of freedom, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test result on the test set was 6.790 (P = 0.560) with 8 degrees of freedom.

Table 2 Univariate and multivariable logistic regression model of study variables vs. independent walking at discharge in the training set

Variables	Univariate analysis		Multivariable analysis	
Odds Ratio (95%CI)	P value		Odds Ratio (95%CI)	P value	
Age	0.98 (0.97–0.99)	0.018		0.97 (0.96–0.99)	0.013	
Sex, male vs. female	1.31 (0.82–2.11)	0.263		-	-	
Medical insurance yes vs. no	0.97 (0.46–2.05)	0.930		-	-	
Length of stay, vs. ≤ 1 month						
 1–2 months	1.10 (0.63–1.92)	0.730		-	-	
 2–3 months	0.95 (0.49–1.85)	0.889		-	-	
 ≥ 3 months	0.93 (0.43–2.01)	0.851		-	-	
Time since onset, vs. ≤ 1 month						
 1–3 months	0.78 (0.39–1.58)	0.497		-	-	
 ≥ 3 months	0.35 (0.09–1.36)	0.129		-	-	
Type of stroke, hemorrhagic vs. ischemic	0.92 (0.61–1.41)	0.715		-	-	
Side of stroke, right vs. left	0.97 (0.64–1.48)	0.889		-	-	
Lesion location, vs. cortical						
 subcortical	0.48 (0.28–0.84)	0.009		-	-	
 both	0.45 (0.23–0.85)	0.015		-	-	
Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, no vs. yes	3.01 (1.52–5.96)	0.002		-	-	
Emotional disorder, no vs. yes	1.25 (0.82–1.91)	0.303		-	-	
Cognitive disorder, no vs. yes	2.60 (1.70–3.98)	< 0.001		1.60 (0.94–2.73)	0.086	
Sleep disorder, no vs. yes	1.07 (0.69–1.66)	0.771		-	-	
Dysphagia, no vs. yes	1.83 (1.06–3.14)	0.029		-	-	
Aphasia, no vs. yes	1.38 (0.85–2.23)	0.190		-	-	
Lower limb spasticity, no vs. yes	2.94 (1.60–5.42)	< 0.001		3.73 (1.80–7.72)	< 0.001	
FAC at admission, vs. 0						
 1	1.59 (0.72–3.53)	0.253		0.63 (0.25–1.54)	0.307	
 2	6.14 (3.26–11.57)	< 0.001		1.72 (0.78–3.77)	0.179	
 3	20.22 (11.16–36.63)	< 0.001		5.01 (2.40-10.46)	< 0.001	
FMA-LE at admission	1.18 (1.14–1.21)	< 0.001		1.14 (1.10–1.18)	< 0.001	
FMB at admission	1.40 (1.30–1.52)	< 0.001		-	-	
NIHSS at admission	0.76 (0.71–0.81)	< 0.001		-	-	
BI at admission	1.06 (1.05–1.08)	< 0.001		-	-	

Comparisons of logistic regression and machine learning models

All baseline variables were used in the development of the three ML models (XGBoost, SVM, and RF) for prediction of “independent walking” at discharge. The test set was used to compare the performance of the models. In the LR model, the ROC curve was used to evaluate the discriminative ability of the prediction model, and its AUC was 0.891 (95%CI = 0.828–0.954) in the test set. The AUC of the XGBoost, SVM and RF models are 0.880 (95%CI = 0.818–0.942), 0.659 (95%CI = 0.567–0.751), and 0.713 (95%CI = 0.617–0.808), respectively. Among the three ML models, the AUC of the XGBoost model is significantly higher than that of the SVM and RF models (P < 0.001, P = 0.024, respectively). Although the LR model had a slightly higher AUC than the XGB model in the test set, there was no significant difference in the comparison (0.891 vs. 0.880, z = 0.570, P = 0.569). ROC curves for all models are shown in Fig. 2. Table 3 shows the number of correct predictive values of all models, based on which the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and F1 scores of the LR, XGBoost, SVM, and RF models were calculated. These values together confirmed that the XGBoost model performed best among the three ML models, as shown in Table 4. Compared to the LR model, the XGBoost model had superior accuracy (87.82% vs. 86.54%), sensitivity (50.00% vs. 39.39%), PPV (73.68% vs. 73.33%), NPV (89.78% vs. 87.94%), and F1 score (59.57% vs. 51.16%), and the specificity was only slightly lower (96.09% vs. 96.88%).

Fig. 2 Receiver operating characteristic curve for the models

Table 3 Number of correct predictive values of the LR and ML models

Model	Dataset	Observed	Predicted	
Independent walking	Non-independent walking	
LR	Training	Independent walking	40	67	
Non-independent walking	14	501	
Total	54	568	
Testing	Independent walking	11	17	
Non-independent walking	4	124	
Total	15	141	
XGBoost	Training	Independent walking	77	30	
Non-independent walking	12	503	
Total	89	533	
Testing	Independent walking	14	14	
Non-independent walking	5	123	
Total	19	137	
SVM	Training	Independent walking	47	60	
Non-independent walking	12	503	
Total	59	563	
Testing	Independent walking	10	18	
Non-independent walking	5	123	
Total	15	141	
RF	Training	Independent walking	107	0	
		Non-independent walking	0	515	
		Total	107	515	
	Testing	Independent walking	13	15	
		Non-independent walking	5	123	
		Total	18	138	

Table 4 The performance of the LR and ML models

Model	Dataset	AUC	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	F1 score	
LR	Training	0.889	86.98%	37.38%	97.28%	74.07%	88.20%	49.69%	
Testing	0.891	86.54%	39.39%	96.88%	73.33%	87.94%	51.16%	
XGBoost	Training	0.972	93.25%	71.96%	97.67%	86.52%	94.37%	78.57%	
Testing	0.880	87.82%	50.00%	96.09%	73.68%	89.78%	59.57%	
SVM	Training	0.708	88.42%	43.93%	97.67%	79.66%	89.34%	56.63%	
Testing	0.659	85.26%	35.71%	96.09%	66.67%	87.23%	38.53%	
RF	Training	1.000	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	
Testing	0.713	87.18%	46.43%	96.09%	72.22%	89.13%	56.52%	

Predictors selection

Stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that age, lower limb spasticity, admission FAC, and admission FMA-LE were independent predictors of independent walking in stroke patients. The XGBoost model was used to rank the importance of the feature variables, and the top ten variables are as follows: FMA-LE at admission, FAC at admission, age, NIHSS at admission, LOS, FMB at admission, BI at admission, lower limb spasticity, type of stroke, lesion location (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Features selected using XGBoost and the corresponding variable importance score

Discussion

It is of great importance to accurately predict the walking independence of stroke patients at the time of rehabilitation admission. In this study, we innovatively developed three machine learning algorithm-based models (XGBoost, SVM, and RF) to predict whether stroke patients would be able to walk independently at discharge from the rehabilitation center and compared them with the traditional stepwise LR model. The results show that, overall, the XGBoost model had the best predictive performance.

Most of the previous studies on related topics have used only LR analysis methods to build only one predictive model [28, 29]. However, the conventional LR analysis has its limitations, for example, it cannot well analyze the complex nonlinear relationship between variables [30]. Recently, new machine learning techniques have shown higher predictive performance compared to traditional predictive methods [31]. In this study, three commonly used machine learning algorithms (XGBoost, SVM, and RF) were selected to establish three models for predicting independent walking in stroke patients and compared with the classic LR model. First, the AUCs of the models were calculated and compared. The higher the AUC of the model, the higher the predictive value. Among the three machine learning models, the AUC of the XGBoost model was significantly higher than that of the SVM model and the RF model, suggesting that the overall performance of the XGBoost model was optimal. As a decision tree-based algorithm, XGBoost was voted the best algorithm in a machine learning and prediction competition hosted by Kaggle.com [32, 33]. Due to its best accuracy and performance, machine learning based on XGBoost algorithms has been increasingly taken seriously as a competitive alternative to regression analysis and used to predict clinical outcomes. The AUC of the two models exceeded 0.85 in both the training and test sets, indicating that the overall predictive performance of the models was good. Although the AUC of the XGBoost model was slightly lower than that of the LR model in the test set, the Delong test revealed no significant difference. Previous studies usually used multiple indicators to evaluate model performance [34, 35]. Thus, we further compared the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and F1 scores of the two models in the test set. Our results demonstrated that, taken together, the XGBoost model performed better than the LR model. Therefore, it was recommended that the XGBoost model be used to predict whether stroke patients who were unable to walk independently at the time of rehabilitation admission would be able to walk independently at discharge. We also suggested that future studies could consider using the XGBoost algorithm to predict other functional outcomes in stroke patients.

Step logistic regression analysis showed that age, lower extremity spasticity, FAC at admission and FMA-LE at admission were independently associated with independent walking at discharge in stroke patients. The XGBoost model ranked the importance of the variables, and the top 10 variables were FMA-LE at admission, FAC at admission, age, NIHSS at admission, LOS, FMB at admission, BI at admission, lower limb spasticity, type of stroke, lesion location. Together, the two models determined that the key variables affecting independent walking in stroke patients at discharge were age, FMA-LE at admission, FAC at admission, and lower extremity spasticity. A review of 15 studies that explored which factors predicted independent walking at 3, 6, and 12 months for in non-ambulatory people within one month of stroke, and found that younger age predicted independent walking at 3 months [3]. Similarly, we found that the younger the stroke patient, the more likely they were to walk independently at discharge. The same conclusion was also reached by Kennedy et al. [36] and Hirano et al. [12] This study also found that the presence of lower extremity spasticity prevented patients from achieving independent walking at discharge. A recent study, which found that moderate levels of plantar flexors spasticity resulted in the highest sensitivity for predicting poor gait speed performance and the highest specificity for predicting good mobility performance in post-stroke patients, supported our findings to some extent [37]. This study also showed that patients with FAC = 3 at admission were 5.01 times more likely to achieve independent walking at discharge than those who were unable to walk at all, which was consistent with the findings of Louie et al. [38]. They found that those with any ability to walk at admission (with or without therapist assistance) were 9.48 times more likely to be discharged home than those who were unable. In addition, we found that lower limb motor function was an important factor in independent walking. Hiratsuka et al. also found that lower limb motor function was an additional predictor of independent walking in a 30-day poststroke cohort [39]. Notably, the TWIST algorithm proposed by Smith et al. in 2017 incorporated trunk control test scores and hip extension strength to predict whether and when an individual patient walked independently after stroke [40]. They later built on their earlier work to examine other potential predictors, including age, knee extension strength, and Berg Balance Test score [41]. However, the trunk control test and lower limb muscle strength test were not included in the admission assessment records of patients at our hospital, and we will consider including them in future prospective studies. Some studies have also used neurophysiological or neuroimaging measures to predict walking independence in stroke patients [42–44], but one study showed that the absence of lower limb motor-evoked potentials did not preclude independent walking [45]. Although this study lacked more types of indicators to predict independent walking, we established a model with good predictive performance by using simple and easily accessible clinical data, which might be more in line with the actual clinical situation and had certain reference significance for clinical practice.

Limitations

Undoubtedly, our study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective, single-center study, and selection bias was inevitable. In the future, we will conduct prospective studies with larger samples to obtain more accurate results. Second, we did not have a separate data set to externally validate the predictive model established in this study, so the generalizability may not be guaranteed. Further studies using data from other hospitals are needed. Third, our prediction model used only clinical data of rehabilitation admission, whereas other studies may have incorporated imaging features, electrophysiological features, etc. In future prospective studies, we should consider using more types of data to build predictive models. Fourth, we did not follow long-term outcomes of walking function in stroke patients after discharge, and predictors of long-term outcomes in stroke patients may be different from those at discharge. Fifth, we selected only 3 commonly used machine learning algorithms to build the models and compare them, and other algorithms such as AdaBoost and neural networks deserve further investigation. However, in this study, we initially found that the XGBoost model showed better predictive performance than the LR model in predicting independent walking in stroke patients based on clinical data at the time of rehabilitation admission. Our methodology and results will inform future studies.

Conclusions

Overall, the XGBoost model showed the best performance in predicting independent walking after stroke. The XGBoost and LR models together confirm that age, FMA-LE at admission, FAC at admission, and lower extremity spasticity are key factors affecting independent walking in stroke patients at discharge from hospital. Our study suggests that XGBoost can be used to build a predictive model of independent walking in stroke patients at discharge based on clinical data of hospitalized stroke patients, providing guidance for setting rehabilitation goals, selecting treatment plans, and making discharge plans.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge our colleagues in the medical records Department of the China Rehabilitation Research Center for their assistance in this study.

Author contributions

ZT- design of work, analysis, interpretation of data, drafted the manuscript. WS- analysis, interpretation of data, drafted and substantively revised the manuscript. TL- design of work, acquisition of data, drafted the manuscript. HL- design of work, substantively revised the manuscript. YL- analysis, interpretation of data. HL- analysis, interpretation of data. KH- analysis, interpretation of data. MM- acquisition of data. JL- acquisition of data. XL: acquisition of data. XZ: substantively revised the manuscript. LS: substantively revised the manuscript. HZ- conception, design of work, drafted and substantively revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the general program of China Rehabilitation Research Center [grant numbers 2023ZX-14].

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee of China Rehabilitation Research Center (approval number 2022-141-02). Informed consent was not obtained as this was a retrospective, hospital-based study. As this was a hospital-based retrospective study, the exemption from obtaining informed consent was granted by the medical ethics committee of China Rehabilitation Research Center. All methods and procedures were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

AUC Area Under Curves

BI Barthel Index

FAC Functional Ambulation Category

FMA-LE Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment of the Lower Extremity

FMB Fugl-Meyer Balance Assessment

LR Logistic Regression

LOS Length of Stay

ML Machine Learning

NIHSS National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale

NPV Negative Predictive Value

PPV Positive Predictive Value

RF Random Forest

ROC Receiver Operating Characteristic

SVM Support Vector Machines

XGBoost eXtreme Gradient Boosting

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Zhou M Wang H Zeng X Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017 Lancet 2019 394 1145 58 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30427-1 31248666
Zhou M, Wang H, Zeng X, et al. Mortality, morbidity, and risk factors in China and its provinces, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2019;394:1145–58. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30427-1.31248666 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30427-1
2. Rabinstein AA Albers GW Brinjikji W Koch S Factors that may contribute to poor outcome despite good reperfusion after acute endovascular stroke therapy Int J Stroke 2019 14 23 31 10.1177/1747493018799979 30188259
Rabinstein AA, Albers GW, Brinjikji W, Koch S. Factors that may contribute to poor outcome despite good reperfusion after acute endovascular stroke therapy. Int J Stroke. 2019;14:23–31. 10.1177/1747493018799979.30188259 10.1177/1747493018799979
3. Preston E Ada L Stanton R Prediction of independent walking in people who are nonambulatory early after stroke: a systematic review Stroke 2021 52 3217 24 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032345 34238016
Preston E, Ada L, Stanton R, et al. Prediction of independent walking in people who are nonambulatory early after stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2021;52:3217–24. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032345.34238016 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032345
4. Preston E Ada L Dean CM What is the probability of patients who are nonambulatory after stroke regaining independent walking? A systematic review Int J Stroke 2011 6 531 40 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00668.x 22111798
Preston E, Ada L, Dean CM, et al. What is the probability of patients who are nonambulatory after stroke regaining independent walking? A systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2011;6:531–40. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00668.x.22111798 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00668.x
5. Harris JE Eng JJ Goal priorities identified through client-centred measurement in individuals with chronic stroke Physiother Can 2004 56 171 6 10.2310/6640.2004.00017 23372280
Harris JE, Eng JJ. Goal priorities identified through client-centred measurement in individuals with chronic stroke. Physiother Can. 2004;56:171–6. 10.2310/6640.2004.00017.23372280 10.2310/6640.2004.00017
6. Teasell RW Bhogal SK Foley NC Speechley MR Gait retraining post stroke Top Stroke Rehabil 2003 10 34 65 10.1310/UDXE-MJFF-53V2-EAP0 13680517
Teasell RW, Bhogal SK, Foley NC, Speechley MR. Gait retraining post stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003;10:34–65. 10.1310/UDXE-MJFF-53V2-EAP0.13680517 10.1310/UDXE-MJFF-53V2-EAP0
7. Mayo NE Wood-Dauphinee S Côté R Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002 83 1035 42 10.1053/apmr.2002.33984 12161823
Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, et al. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1035–42. 10.1053/apmr.2002.33984.12161823 10.1053/apmr.2002.33984
8. Kwah LK Herbert RD Prediction of walking and arm recovery after stroke: a critical review Brain Sci 2016 6 53 10.3390/brainsci6040053 27827835
Kwah LK, Herbert RD. Prediction of walking and arm recovery after stroke: a critical review. Brain Sci. 2016;6:53. 10.3390/brainsci6040053.27827835 10.3390/brainsci6040053
9. Craig LE Wu O Bernhardt J Langhorne P Predictors of poststroke mobility: systematic review Int J Stroke 2011 6 321 7 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00621.x 21745343
Craig LE, Wu O, Bernhardt J, Langhorne P. Predictors of poststroke mobility: systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2011;6:321–7. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00621.x.21745343 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00621.x
10. Veerbeek JM Kwakkel G van Wegen EE Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review Stroke 2011 42 1482 8 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.604090 21474812
Veerbeek JM, Kwakkel G, van Wegen EE, et al. Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2011;42:1482–8. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.604090.21474812 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.604090
11. Bland MD Sturmoski A Whitson M Prediction of discharge walking ability from initial assessment in a stroke inpatient rehabilitation facility population Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012 93 1441 7 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.02.029 22446516
Bland MD, Sturmoski A, Whitson M, et al. Prediction of discharge walking ability from initial assessment in a stroke inpatient rehabilitation facility population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1441–7. 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.02.029.22446516 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.02.029
12. Hirano Y Hayashi T Nitta O Prediction of independent walking ability for severely hemiplegic stroke patients at Discharge from a Rehabilitation Hospital J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016 25 1878 81 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.12.020 27156902
Hirano Y, Hayashi T, Nitta O, et al. Prediction of independent walking ability for severely hemiplegic stroke patients at Discharge from a Rehabilitation Hospital. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;25:1878–81. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.12.020.27156902 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.12.020
13. Lin WY Chen CH Tseng YJ Predicting post-stroke activities of daily living through a machine learning-based approach on initiating rehabilitation Int J Med Inf 2018 111 159 64 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.002
Lin WY, Chen CH, Tseng YJ, et al. Predicting post-stroke activities of daily living through a machine learning-based approach on initiating rehabilitation. Int J Med Inf. 2018;111:159–64. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.002.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.002
14. Liang Y Li Q Chen P Comparative study of back Propagation Artificial neural networks and logistic regression model in Predicting Poor Prognosis after Acute ischemic stroke Open Med (Wars) 2019 14 324 30 10.1515/med-2019-0030 30997395
Liang Y, Li Q, Chen P, et al. Comparative study of back Propagation Artificial neural networks and logistic regression model in Predicting Poor Prognosis after Acute ischemic stroke. Open Med (Wars). 2019;14:324–30. 10.1515/med-2019-0030.30997395 10.1515/med-2019-0030
15. Qu S Zhou M Jiao S Optimizing acute stroke outcome prediction models: comparison of generalized regression neural networks and logistic regressions PLoS ONE 2022 17 e0267747 10.1371/journal.pone.0267747 35544482
Qu S, Zhou M, Jiao S, et al. Optimizing acute stroke outcome prediction models: comparison of generalized regression neural networks and logistic regressions. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0267747. 10.1371/journal.pone.0267747.35544482 10.1371/journal.pone.0267747
16. Liu S See KC Ngiam KY Reinforcement learning for clinical decision support in critical care: Comprehensive Review J Med Internet Res 2020 22 e18477 10.2196/18477 32706670
Liu S, See KC, Ngiam KY, et al. Reinforcement learning for clinical decision support in critical care: Comprehensive Review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e18477. 10.2196/18477.32706670 10.2196/18477
17. Campagnini S Arienti C Patrini M Machine learning methods for functional recovery prediction and prognosis in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review J Neuroeng Rehabil 2022 19 54 10.1186/s12984-022-01032-4 35659246
Campagnini S, Arienti C, Patrini M, et al. Machine learning methods for functional recovery prediction and prognosis in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19:54. 10.1186/s12984-022-01032-4.35659246 10.1186/s12984-022-01032-4
18. Khan O Badhiwala JH Wilson JRF Predictive modeling of outcomes after traumatic and nontraumatic spinal cord Injury using machine learning: review of current progress and future directions Neurospine 2019 16 678 85 10.14245/ns.1938390.195 31905456
Khan O, Badhiwala JH, Wilson JRF, et al. Predictive modeling of outcomes after traumatic and nontraumatic spinal cord Injury using machine learning: review of current progress and future directions. Neurospine. 2019;16:678–85. 10.14245/ns.1938390.195.31905456 10.14245/ns.1938390.195
19. Zhang X Fei N Zhang X Machine learning prediction models for postoperative stroke in Elderly patients: analyses of the MIMIC database Front Aging Neurosci 2022 14 897611 10.3389/fnagi.2022.897611 35923545
Zhang X, Fei N, Zhang X, et al. Machine learning prediction models for postoperative stroke in Elderly patients: analyses of the MIMIC database. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14:897611. 10.3389/fnagi.2022.897611.35923545 10.3389/fnagi.2022.897611
20. Hu Y, Yang T, Zhang J, et al. Dynamic prediction of mechanical thrombectomy outcome for Acute ischemic stroke patients using machine learning. Brain Sci. 2022;12. 10.3390/brainsci12070938.
21. Chen R Zhang S Li J A study on predicting the length of hospital stay for Chinese patients with ischemic stroke based on the XGBoost algorithm BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 2023 23 49 10.1186/s12911-023-02140-4
Chen R, Zhang S, Li J, et al. A study on predicting the length of hospital stay for Chinese patients with ischemic stroke based on the XGBoost algorithm. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2023;23:49. 10.1186/s12911-023-02140-4.10.1186/s12911-023-02140-4
22. Noble WS What is a support vector machine? Nat Biotechnol 2006 24 1565 7 10.1038/nbt1206-1565 17160063
Noble WS. What is a support vector machine? Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24:1565–7. 10.1038/nbt1206-1565.17160063 10.1038/nbt1206-1565
23. Luo Y Li Z Guo H Predicting congenital heart defects: a comparison of three data mining methods PLoS ONE 2017 12 e177811 10.1371/journal.pone
Luo Y, Li Z, Guo H, et al. Predicting congenital heart defects: a comparison of three data mining methods. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e177811. 10.1371/journal.pone.10.1371/journal.pone
24. Maeshima S Okamoto S Mizuno S Predicting walking ability in hemiplegic patients with putaminal hemorrhage: an observational study in a rehabilitation hospital Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2021 57 321 6 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.05823-2 31976635
Maeshima S, Okamoto S, Mizuno S, et al. Predicting walking ability in hemiplegic patients with putaminal hemorrhage: an observational study in a rehabilitation hospital. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021;57:321–6. 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.05823-2.31976635 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.05823-2
25. Robin X Turck N Hainard A pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves BMC Bioinformatics 2011 12 77 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77 21414208
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:77. 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77.21414208 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
26. Heo J Yoon JG Park H Machine learning-based model for prediction of outcomes in Acute Stroke Stroke 2019 50 1263 5 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024293 30890116
Heo J, Yoon JG, Park H, et al. Machine learning-based model for prediction of outcomes in Acute Stroke. Stroke. 2019;50:1263–5. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024293.30890116 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024293
27. DeLong ER DeLong DM Clarke-Pearson DL Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach Biometrics 1988 44 837 45 10.2307/2531595 3203132
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.3203132 10.2307/2531595
28. Yan C Zheng Y Zhang X Development and validation of a nomogram model for predicting unfavorable functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients after acute phase Front Aging Neurosci 2023 15 1161016 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1161016 37520125
Yan C, Zheng Y, Zhang X, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram model for predicting unfavorable functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients after acute phase. Front Aging Neurosci. 2023;15:1161016. 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1161016.37520125 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1161016
29. Gianella MG Gath CF Bonamico L Prediction of Gait without Physical Assistance after Inpatient Rehabilitation in severe subacute stroke subjects J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2019 28 104367 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104367 31519458
Gianella MG, Gath CF, Bonamico L, et al. Prediction of Gait without Physical Assistance after Inpatient Rehabilitation in severe subacute stroke subjects. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;28:104367. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104367.31519458 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104367
30. Hassanipour S Ghaem H Arab-Zozani M Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for prediction of outcomes in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Injury 2019 50 244 50 10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.007 30660332
Hassanipour S, Ghaem H, Arab-Zozani M, et al. Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for prediction of outcomes in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2019;50:244–50. 10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.007.30660332 10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.007
31. Hou N Li M He L Predicting 30-days mortality for MIMIC-III patients with sepsis-3: a machine learning approach using XGboost J Transl Med 2020 18 462 10.1186/s12967-020-02620-5 33287854
Hou N, Li M, He L, et al. Predicting 30-days mortality for MIMIC-III patients with sepsis-3: a machine learning approach using XGboost. J Transl Med. 2020;18:462. 10.1186/s12967-020-02620-5.33287854 10.1186/s12967-020-02620-5
32. Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining-KDD 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2016. pp. 785–94.
33. LANL Earthquake Prediction. 2019. https://www.kaggle.com/c/LANLEarth quake Prediction. Accessed 15 Mar 2020.
34. Kim JK Choo YJ Chang MC Prediction of motor function in stroke patients using machine learning algorithm: development of practical models J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2021 30 105856 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105856 34022582
Kim JK, Choo YJ, Chang MC. Prediction of motor function in stroke patients using machine learning algorithm: development of practical models. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2021;30:105856. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105856.34022582 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105856
35. Cerasa A Tartarisco G Bruschetta R Predicting Outcome in patients with Brain Injury: differences between machine learning versus Conventional statistics Biomedicines 2022 10 2267 10.3390/biomedicines10092267 36140369
Cerasa A, Tartarisco G, Bruschetta R, et al. Predicting Outcome in patients with Brain Injury: differences between machine learning versus Conventional statistics. Biomedicines. 2022;10:2267. 10.3390/biomedicines10092267.36140369 10.3390/biomedicines10092267
36. Kennedy C Bernhardt J Churilov L Factors associated with time to independent walking recovery post-stroke J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021 92 702 8 10.1136/jnnp-2020-325125 33737383
Kennedy C, Bernhardt J, Churilov L, et al. Factors associated with time to independent walking recovery post-stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92:702–8. 10.1136/jnnp-2020-325125.33737383 10.1136/jnnp-2020-325125
37. Freire B Bochehin do Valle M Lanferdini FJ Cut-off score of the modified Ashworth scale corresponding to walking ability and functional mobility in individuals with chronic stroke Disabil Rehabil 2023 45 866 70 10.1080/09638288.2022.2037753 35171052
Freire B, Bochehin do Valle M, Lanferdini FJ, et al. Cut-off score of the modified Ashworth scale corresponding to walking ability and functional mobility in individuals with chronic stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45:866–70. 10.1080/09638288.2022.2037753.35171052 10.1080/09638288.2022.2037753
38. Louie DR Simpson LA Mortenson WB Prevalence of walking Limitation after Acute Stroke and its impact on discharge to Home Phys Ther 2022 102 pzab246 10.1093/ptj/pzab246 34718796
Louie DR, Simpson LA, Mortenson WB, et al. Prevalence of walking Limitation after Acute Stroke and its impact on discharge to Home. Phys Ther. 2022;102:pzab246. 10.1093/ptj/pzab246.34718796 10.1093/ptj/pzab246
39. Hiratsuka K Tamiya T Matsuoka S Kimura K Stroke impairment, balance, and cognitive status on admission predict walking independence up to 90 days post-stroke but their contributions change over time Int J Rehabil Res 2023 46 61 9 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000561 36728860
Hiratsuka K, Tamiya T, Matsuoka S, Kimura K. Stroke impairment, balance, and cognitive status on admission predict walking independence up to 90 days post-stroke but their contributions change over time. Int J Rehabil Res. 2023;46:61–9. 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000561.36728860 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000561
40. Smith MC Barber PA Stinear CM The TWIST Algorithm Predicts Time to walking independently after stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017 31 955 64 10.1177/1545968317736820 29090654
Smith MC, Barber PA, Stinear CM. The TWIST Algorithm Predicts Time to walking independently after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:955–64. 10.1177/1545968317736820.29090654 10.1177/1545968317736820
41. Smith MC Barber AP Scrivener BJ Stinear CM The TWIST Tool predicts when patients will recover independent walking after stroke: an observational study Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2022 36 461 71 10.1177/15459683221085287 35586876
Smith MC, Barber AP, Scrivener BJ, Stinear CM. The TWIST Tool predicts when patients will recover independent walking after stroke: an observational study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2022;36:461–71. 10.1177/15459683221085287.35586876 10.1177/15459683221085287
42. Nomoto M Miyata K Kohno Y White matter hyperintensity predicts independent walking function at 6 months after stroke: a retrospective cohort study NeuroRehabilitation 2023 53 557 65 10.3233/NRE-230225 38143395
Nomoto M, Miyata K, Kohno Y. White matter hyperintensity predicts independent walking function at 6 months after stroke: a retrospective cohort study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2023;53:557–65. 10.3233/NRE-230225.38143395 10.3233/NRE-230225
43. Soulard J Huber C Baillieul S Motor tract integrity predicts walking recovery: a diffusion MRI study in subacute stroke Neurology 2020 94 e583 93 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008755 31896618
Soulard J, Huber C, Baillieul S, et al. Motor tract integrity predicts walking recovery: a diffusion MRI study in subacute stroke. Neurology. 2020;94:e583–93. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008755.31896618 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008755
44. Piron L Piccione F Tonin P Dam M Clinical correlation between motor evoked potentials and gait recovery in poststroke patients Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005 86 1874 8 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.007 16181957
Piron L, Piccione F, Tonin P, Dam M. Clinical correlation between motor evoked potentials and gait recovery in poststroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1874–8. 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.007.16181957 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.007
45. Smith MC Scrivener BJ Stinear CM Do lower limb motor-evoked potentials predict walking outcomes post-stroke? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2023 10.1136/jnnp-2023-332018 37221052
Smith MC, Scrivener BJ, Stinear CM. Do lower limb motor-evoked potentials predict walking outcomes post-stroke? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2023. 10.1136/jnnp-2023-332018.37221052 10.1136/jnnp-2023-332018
