Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses health-related quality of life after hemorrhagic stroke, indicating significant impact of comorbidities.
Background and aims To assess and compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients during the early recovery period after hemorrhagic stroke (HS) developing in the presence of comorbid conditions, using artificial intelligence (AI)-based modeling. Methods 50 patients with hemorrhagic stroke were included. Group I (n = 30) comprised patients with hypertension-related hemorrhagic stroke, while Group II (n = 20) included patients with hemorrhagic stroke and comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. All patients were evaluated on day 21 after stroke onset using the SF-36 questionnaire. Data were analyzed using an AI-based Random Forest model to assess intergroup differences and identify key determinants of reduced health-related quality of life. Results The Random Forest classification model demonstrated an overall accuracy of 82%, with a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 85%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.84, indicating good discriminative performance of the model. The SF-36 domains with the greatest impact on HRQoL deterioration were physical functioning (PF) – 0.28, general health (GH) – 0.24, vitality (VT) – 0.19, and mental health (MH) – 0.15. Patients in Group II showed significantly lower scores in these domains compared to Group I, confirming the negative impact of metabolic comorbidity on post-stroke quality of life. Conclusions Integration of SF-36 questionnaire data with AI-based analytical models enables a more precise and comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in patients after hemorrhagic stroke. AI-driven approaches represent a promising tool for early identification of high-risk patients, development of individualized rehabilitation strategies, and support of clinical decision-making. Conflict of interest nothing to disclose
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbaralieva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: