Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34862551›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica. Supplement2022

Big Data in the Clinical Neurosciences.

G Damian Brusko, Gregory Basil, Michael Y Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

G Damian BruskoDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Lois Pope Life Center, Miami, FL, USA. g.brusko@med.miami.edu.
Gregory BasilDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Lois Pope Life Center, Miami, FL, USA.
Michael Y WangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Lois Pope Life Center, Miami, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical neurosciences have historically been at the forefront of innovation, often incorporating the newest research methods into practice. This chapter will explore the adoption, implementation, and refinement of big data and predictive modeling using machine learning within neurosurgery. Initial development of national databases arose from surgeons aiming to improve outcome predictions for patients with traumatic brain injury in the 1960s. In the following decades, other surgical specialties began building databases that left a lasting impact on the current national neurosurgical databases, particularly in spine surgery. Significant contributions to the literature have been made as a result of the numerous registries today, leading to broad quality improvements for neurosurgical patients. Important limitations of large databases do exist, including lack of standardized reporting and challenges in data extraction from medical records. New vistas will include the use of metadata to track human function, performance, and pain in a real-time manner to augment the reliance on traditional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Overall, big data has demonstrated significant utility within neurosurgical research and machine learning-powered analyses have highlighted several promising areas of interest for future exploration.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesNeurosurgeryBig DataHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresRegistriesBig DataDatabaseMachine learningNational RegistryNeurosurgeryPatient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)Predictive analyticsQuality improvement

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.