Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35756926›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Learning Models for Traumatic Brain Injury Mortality Prediction on Pediatric Electronic Health Records.

João Fonseca, Xiuyun Liu, Hélder P Oliveira, Tania Pereira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury and Healthcare-associated Infections: A Prospective Study on Determinants of Mortality Using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator Regression.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Integrating clinical features withBMC medical imaging · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Outcome Prediction Using Machine Learning Methods.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023
    Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

João FonsecaInstitute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal.
Xiuyun LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Hélder P OliveiraInstitute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal.
Tania PereiraInstitute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal.
INESC TEC · PTJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of injury related mortality in the world, with severe cases reaching mortality rates of 30-40%. It is highly heterogeneous both in causes and consequences, complicating medical interpretation and prognosis. Gathering clinical, demographic, and laboratory data to perform a prognosis requires time and skill in several clinical specialties. Machine learning (ML) methods can take advantage of the data and guide physicians toward a better prognosis and, consequently, better healthcare. The objective of this study was to develop and test a wide range of machine learning models and evaluate their capability of predicting mortality of TBI, at hospital discharge, while assessing the similarity between the predictive value of the data and clinical significance. Methods: The used dataset is the Hackathon Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury (HPTBI) dataset, composed of electronic health records containing clinical annotations and demographic data of 300 patients. Four different classification models were tested, either with or without feature selection. For each combination of the classification model and feature selection method, the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC-AUC), balanced accuracy, precision, and recall were calculated. Results: Methods based on decision trees perform better when using all features (Random Forest, AUC = 0.86 and XGBoost, AUC = 0.91) but other models require prior feature selection to obtain the best results (k-Nearest Neighbors, AUC = 0.90 and Artificial Neural Networks, AUC = 0.84). Additionally, Random Forest and XGBoost allow assessing the feature's importance, which could give insights for future strategies on the clinical routine. Conclusion: Predictive capability depends greatly on the combination of model and feature selection methods used but, overall, ML models showed a very good performance in mortality prediction for TBI. The feature importance results indicate that predictive value is not directly related to clinical significance.

Indexed as

clinical significancefeature importancefeature selectionintensive care unitmachine learningmortality predictionTraumatic Brain Injury

Identifiers

PMID35756926
PMCPMC9226580
OpenAlexW4282007414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.