Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The overall processes of the study.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Summary of the variables used in the study.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

The ICD-9 coded baseline.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The event distribution of stroke subtypes among the four categories.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The performance curves when adding the variable sets (Table 1).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 2.

Performance of different classification algorithms for stroke case identification.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Statistical significance tests (paired T-test) of the performance difference between the machine learning algorithms and the baselines on stroke case identification.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 5.

Precision-recall curves generated by the algorithms.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 4.

Performance of different classification algorithms for stroke type identification.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Statistical significance tests (paired T-test) of the performance difference between the machine learning algorithms and the baselines on stroke type identification.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Confusion matrices generated by ICD9, CLIN, and RF on the test set.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 6.

Misclassification errors made by the RF algorithm on the test set.

More »

Table 6 Expand