ArticlePloS one2016
Predictors of Outcome in Traumatic Brain Injury: New Insight Using Receiver Operating Curve Indices and Bayesian Network Analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using metabolomics to predict severe traumatic brain injury outcome (GOSE) at 3 and 12 months.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Long-Term Functional Outcome and Quality of Life in Long-Term Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors.Neurotrauma reports · 2023Article
- Comparability of (Post-Concussion) Symptoms across Time in Individuals after Traumatic Brain Injury: Results from the CENTER-TBI Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Machine learning techniques for mortality prediction in critical traumatic patients: anatomic and physiologic variables from the RETRAUCI study.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Multimorbidity states associated with higher mortality rates in organ dysfunction and sepsis: a data-driven analysis in critical care.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
- Article
- Multivariable and Bayesian Network Analysis of Outcome Predictors in Acute Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Review of a Pure Surgical Series in the Post-International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial Era.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2018Article
- Article
- The aggressiveness of neurotrauma practitioners and the influence of the IMPACT prognostic calculator.PloS one · 2017Article
- A Configurational Analysis of Risk Patterns for Predicting the Outcome After Traumatic Brain Injury.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.