Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34284922›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi2021

Application of machine learning to predict the outcome of pediatric traumatic brain injury.

Thara Tunthanathip, Thakul Oearsakul

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Comparison of Machine Learning Models in Predicting Mental Health Sequelae Following Concussion in Youth.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thara TunthanathipDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand. Electronic address: tsus4@hotmail.com.
Thakul OearsakulDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand.
Prince of Songkla University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTraumatic brain injury (TBI) generally causes mortality and disability, particularly in children. Machine learning (ML) is a computer algorithm, applied as a clinical prediction tool. The present study aims to assess the predictability of ML for the functional outcomes of pediatric TBI.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed targeting children with TBI who were admitted to the trauma center of southern Thailand between January 2009 and July 2020. The patient was excluded if he/she (1) did not undergo a CT scan of the brain, (2) died within the first 24 h, (3) had unavailable complete medical records during admission, or (4) was unable to provide updated outcomes. Clinical and radiologic characteristics were collected such as vital signs, Glasgow coma scale score, and characteristics of intracranial injuries. The functional outcome was assessed using the King's Outcome Scale for Childhood Head Injury, which was thus dichotomized into favourable outcomes and unfavourable outcomes: good recovery and moderate disability were categorized as the former, whereas death, vegetative state, and severe disability were categorized as the latter. The prognostic factors were estimated using traditional binary logistic regression. By data splitting, 70% of data were used for training the ML models and the remaining 30% were used for testing the ML models. The supervised algorithms including support vector machines, neural networks, random forest, logistic regression, naive Bayes and k-nearest neighbor were performed for training of the ML models. Therefore, the ML models were tested for the predictive performances by the testing datasets.

resultsThere were 828 patients in the cohort. The median age was 72 months (interquartile range 104.7 months, range 2-179 months). Road traffic accident was the most common mechanism of injury, accounting for 68.7%. At hospital discharge, favourable outcomes were achieved in 97.0% of patients, while the mortality rate was 2.2%. Glasgow coma scale score, hypotension, pupillary light reflex, and subarachnoid haemorrhage were associated with TBI outcomes following traditional binary logistic regression; hence, the 4 prognostic factors were used for building ML models and testing performance. The support vector machine model had the best performance for predicting pediatric TBI outcomes: sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.60, positive predicted value 0.99, negative predictive value 1.0; accuracy 0.94, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.78.

conclusionThe ML algorithms of the present study have a high sensitivity; therefore they have the potential to be screening tools for predicting functional outcomes and counselling prognosis in general practice of pediatric TBIs.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticBayes TheoremChildFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRetrospective StudiesLogistic regressionMachine learningPediatricsRandom forestSupport vector machineTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID34284922
PMCPMC8606603
OpenAlexW3168276638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.