ArticleResuscitation2019
A novel methodological framework for multimodality, trajectory model-based prognostication.
Article in Resuscitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between fluid balance trajectories and prognosis in older patients with malnutrition: a group-based trajectory model analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- The value of fetal growth trajectory during pregnancy in predicting small for gestational age neonates at term.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Recent applications of quantitative electroencephalography in adult intensive care units: a comprehensive review.Journal of neurology · 2022Review
- Temporal profiles of systolic blood pressure variability and neurologic outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy.European stroke journal · 2022Article
- Precision Care in Cardiac Arrest: ICECAP (PRECICECAP) Study Protocol and Informatics Approach.Neurocritical care · 2022Article
- Combining Transcranial Doppler and EEG Data to Predict Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.Neurology · 2022Article
- Evolution of Irritability, Anger, and Aggression after Traumatic Brain Injury: Identifying and Predicting Subgroups.Journal of neurotrauma · 2021Article
- Comparison of parametric and nonparametric methods for outcome prediction using longitudinal data after cardiac arrest.Resuscitation · 2020Article
- Trajectory-Defined Thrombo-Inflammatory Phenotypes Predict 30-Day ICU Mortality in Post-cardiac Arrest Syndrome: A Multicenter Retrospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPrognostic tools typically combine several time-invariant clinical predictors using regression models that yield a single, time-invariant outcome prediction. This results in considerable information loss as repeatedly or continuously sampled data are aggregated into single summary measures. We describe a method for real-time multivariate outcome prediction that accommodates both longitudinal data and time-invariant clinical characteristics.
methodsWe included comatose patients treated after resuscitation from cardiac arrest who underwent ≥6 h of electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring. We used Persyst v13 (Persyst Development Corp, Prescott AZ) to generate quantitative EEG (qEEG) features and calculated hourly summaries of whole brain suppression ratio and amplitude-integrated EEG. We randomly selected half of subjects as a training sample and used the other half as a test sample. We applied group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) to the training sample to group patients based on qEEG evolution, then estimated the relationship of group membership and clinical covariates with awakening from coma and surviving to hospital discharge using logistic regression. We used these parameters to calculate posterior probabilities of group membership (PPGMs) in the test sample, and built three prognostic models: adjusted logistic regression (no GBTM), unadjusted GBTM (no clinical covariates) and adjusted GBTM (all data). We compared these models performance characteristics.
resultsWe included 723 patients. Group-specific outcome estimates from a 7-group GBTM ranged from 0 to 75%. Compared to unadjusted GBTM, adjusted GBTM calibration was significantly improved at 6 and 12 h, and time to an outcome estimate <10% and <5% were significantly shortened. Compared to simple logistic regression, adjusted GBTM identified a substantially larger proportion of subjects with outcome probability <1%.
conclusionsWe describe a novel methodology for combining GBTM output and clinical covariates to estimate patient-specific prognosis over time. Refinement of such methods should form the basis for new avenues of prognostication research that minimize loss of clinically important information.
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.