Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35788768›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

The leap to ordinal: Detailed functional prognosis after traumatic brain injury with a flexible modelling approach.

Shubhayu Bhattacharyay, Ioan Milosevic, Lindsay Wilson, David K Menon, Robert D Stevens, Ewout W Steyerberg, David W Nelson, Ari Ercole, CENTER-TBI investigators participants

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Shubhayu BhattacharyayDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7428-5588
Ioan MilosevicDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Lindsay WilsonDivision of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4113-2328
David K MenonDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3228-9692
Robert D StevensLaboratory of Computational Intensive Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
David W NelsonDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Section for Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ari ErcoleDivision of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
CENTER-TBI investigators participants

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When a patient is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), an early prognosis is essential for baseline risk adjustment and shared decision making. TBI outcomes are commonly categorised by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) into eight, ordered levels of functional recovery at 6 months after injury. Existing ICU prognostic models predict binary outcomes at a certain threshold of GOSE (e.g., prediction of survival [GOSE > 1]). We aimed to develop ordinal prediction models that concurrently predict probabilities of each GOSE score. From a prospective cohort (n = 1,550, 65 centres) in the ICU stratum of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) patient dataset, we extracted all clinical information within 24 hours of ICU admission (1,151 predictors) and 6-month GOSE scores. We analysed the effect of two design elements on ordinal model performance: (1) the baseline predictor set, ranging from a concise set of ten validated predictors to a token-embedded representation of all possible predictors, and (2) the modelling strategy, from ordinal logistic regression to multinomial deep learning. With repeated k-fold cross-validation, we found that expanding the baseline predictor set significantly improved ordinal prediction performance while increasing analytical complexity did not. Half of these gains could be achieved with the addition of eight high-impact predictors to the concise set. At best, ordinal models achieved 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74-0.77) ordinal discrimination ability (ordinal c-index) and 57% (95% CI: 54%- 60%) explanation of ordinal variation in 6-month GOSE (Somers' Dxy). Model performance and the effect of expanding the predictor set decreased at higher GOSE thresholds, indicating the difficulty of predicting better functional outcomes shortly after ICU admission. Our results motivate the search for informative predictors that improve confidence in prognosis of higher GOSE and the development of ordinal dynamic prediction models.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticCohort StudiesGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansPrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35788768
PMCPMC9255749

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.