Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27388421›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Predictors of Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury: New Insight Using Receiver Operating Curve Indices and Bayesian Network Analysis.

Zsolt Zador, Matthew Sperrin, Andrew T King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zsolt ZadorDepartment of Neurosurgery, Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
Matthew SperrinHealth eResearch Centre, Farr Institute, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Andrew T KingDepartment of Neurosurgery, Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraumatic brain injury remains a global health problem. Understanding the relative importance of outcome predictors helps optimize our treatment strategies by informing assessment protocols, clinical decisions and trial designs. In this study we establish importance ranking for outcome predictors based on receiver operating indices to identify key predictors of outcome and create simple predictive models. We then explore the associations between key outcome predictors using Bayesian networks to gain further insight into predictor importance.

methodsWe analyzed the corticosteroid randomization after significant head injury (CRASH) trial database of 10008 patients and included patients for whom demographics, injury characteristics, computer tomography (CT) findings and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GCS) were recorded (total of 13 predictors, which would be available to clinicians within a few hours following the injury in 6945 patients). Predictions of clinical outcome (death or severe disability at 6 months) were performed using logistic regression models with 5-fold cross validation. Predictive performance was measured using standardized partial area (pAUC) under the receiver operating curve (ROC) and we used Delong test for comparisons. Variable importance ranking was based on pAUC targeted at specificity (pAUCSP) and sensitivity (pAUCSE) intervals of 90-100%. Probabilistic associations were depicted using Bayesian networks.

resultsComplete AUC analysis showed very good predictive power (AUC = 0.8237, 95% CI: 0.8138-0.8336) for the complete model. Specificity focused importance ranking highlighted age, pupillary, motor responses, obliteration of basal cisterns/3rd ventricle and midline shift. Interestingly when targeting model sensitivity, the highest-ranking variables were age, severe extracranial injury, verbal response, hematoma on CT and motor response. Simplified models, which included only these key predictors, had similar performance (pAUCSP = 0.6523, 95% CI: 0.6402-0.6641 and pAUCSE = 0.6332, 95% CI: 0.62-0.6477) compared to the complete models (pAUCSP = 0.6664, 95% CI: 0.6543-0.679, pAUCSE = 0.6436, 95% CI: 0.6289-0.6585, de Long p value 0.1165 and 0.3448 respectively). Bayesian networks showed the predictors that did not feature in the simplified models were associated with those that did.

conclusionWe demonstrate that importance based variable selection allows simplified predictive models to be created while maintaining prediction accuracy. Variable selection targeting specificity confirmed key components of clinical assessment in TBI whereas sensitivity based ranking suggested extracranial injury as one of the important predictors. These results help refine our approach to head injury assessment, decision-making and outcome prediction targeted at model sensitivity and specificity. Bayesian networks proved to be a comprehensive tool for depicting probabilistic associations for key predictors giving insight into why the simplified model has maintained accuracy.

Indexed as

Glasgow Outcome ScaleROC CurveAdolescentAdultAgedArea Under CurveBayes TheoremBrain Injuries, TraumaticCraniocerebral TraumaDatabases, FactualFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID27388421
PMCPMC4936732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.