Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36216874›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Clustering of trauma patients based on longitudinal data and the application of machine learning to predict recovery.

Kostas Stoitsas, Saurabh Bahulikar, Leonie de Munter, Mariska A C de Jongh, Maria A C Jansen, Merel M Jung, Marijn van Wingerden, Katrijn Van Deun

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Data-driven decision making in patient management: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kostas StoitsasDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands. kstoitsas@gmail.com.
Saurabh BahulikarDepartment of Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands.
Leonie de MunterDepartment Traumatology, ETZ Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Mariska A C de JonghNetwork Emergency Care Brabant, Brabant Trauma Registry, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Maria A C JansenNetwork Emergency Care Brabant, Brabant Trauma Registry, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Merel M JungDepartment of Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands.
Marijn van WingerdenDepartment of Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands.
Katrijn Van DeunDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University · NLGGZ Oost Brabant · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting recovery after trauma is important to provide patients a perspective on their estimated future health, to engage in shared decision making and target interventions to relevant patient groups. In the present study, several unsupervised techniques are employed to cluster patients based on longitudinal recovery profiles. Subsequently, these data-driven clusters were assessed on clinical validity by experts and used as targets in supervised machine learning models. We present a formalised analysis of the obtained clusters that incorporates evaluation of (i) statistical and machine learning metrics, (ii) clusters clinical validity with descriptive statistics and medical expertise. Clusters quality assessment revealed that clusters obtained through a Bayesian method (High Dimensional Supervised Classification and Clustering) and a Deep Gaussian Mixture model, in combination with oversampling and a Random Forest for supervised learning of the cluster assignments provided among the most clinically sensible partitioning of patients. Other methods that obtained higher classification accuracy suffered from cluster solutions with large majority classes or clinically less sensible classes. Models that used just physical or a mix of physical and psychological outcomes proved to be among the most sensible, suggesting that clustering on psychological outcomes alone yields recovery profiles that do not conform to known risk factors.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSupervised Machine LearningBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisHumansRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID36216874
PMCPMC9550811
OpenAlexW4304013940

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.