ArticleBMJ open2022
Development and validation of a prehospital-stage prediction tool for traumatic brain injury: a multicentre retrospective cohort study in Korea.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Meta-analysis of Predicting Disorders of Consciousness After Traumatic Brain Injury by Machine Learning Models.Alpha psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Risk factors for coagulation dysfunction in traumatic brain injury patients: A single-center retrospective cohort study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting Traumatic Brain Injury Post-Trauma Using Temporal Attention on Sleep-Wake Data.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- The ethics of blood stewardship and quantitative futility assessments to predict certain death in neurotrauma patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Use of artificial intelligence to support prehospital traumatic injury care: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Neurocritical Care for Traumatic Brain Injury : Past, Present and Future.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2024Article
- Unveiling the performance of the prehospital Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (pREMS): How the predictive score impacts in-hospital outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI): A retrospective observational cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Traumatic Brain Injury as an Independent Predictor of Futility in the Early Resuscitation of Patients in Hemorrhagic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Factors influencing discharge against medical advice (DAMA) in traumatic brain injury patients requiring decompressive surgery: a comprehensive analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Prognosis prediction in traumatic brain injury patients using machine learning algorithms.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPredicting diagnosis and prognosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) at the prehospital stage is challenging; however, using comprehensive prehospital information and machine learning may improve the performance of the predictive model. We developed and tested predictive models for TBI that use machine learning algorithms using information that can be obtained in the prehospital stage.
designThis was a multicentre retrospective study. SETTING AND
participantsThis study was conducted at three tertiary academic emergency departments (EDs) located in an urban area of South Korea. The data from adult patients with severe trauma who were assessed by emergency medical service providers and transported to three participating hospitals between 2014 to 2018 were analysed.
resultsWe developed and tested five machine learning algorithms-logistic regression analyses, extreme gradient boosting, support vector machine, random forest and elastic net (EN)-to predict TBI, TBI with intracranial haemorrhage or injury (TBI-I), TBI with ED or admission result of admission or transferred (TBI with non-discharge (TBI-ND)) and TBI with ED or admission result of death (TBI-D). A total of 1169 patients were included in the final analysis, and the proportions of TBI, TBI-I, TBI-ND and TBI-D were 24.0%, 21.5%, 21.3% and 3.7%, respectively. The EN model yielded an area under receiver-operator curve of 0.799 for TBI, 0.844 for TBI-I, 0.811 for TBI-ND and 0.871 for TBI-D. The EN model also yielded the highest specificity and significant reclassification improvement. Variables related to loss of consciousness, Glasgow Coma Scale and light reflex were the three most important variables to predict all outcomes.
conclusionOur results inform the diagnosis and prognosis of TBI. Machine learning models resulted in significant performance improvement over that with logistic regression analyses, and the best performing model was EN.
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.