Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37382689›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2023

Machine learning algorithms for improved prediction of in-hospital outcomes after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: a Chinese retrospective cohort study.

Zan Zhang, Sheng-Ju Wang, Kun Chen, An-An Yin, Wei Lin, Ya-Long He

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Machine learning prediction models for in-hospital postoperative functional outcome after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Zan Zhang *School of Electronic and Control Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an, 710064, China.
Sheng-Ju Wang *School of Electronic and Control Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an, 710064, China.
Kun Chen *Department of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology and K.K. Leung Brain Research Centre, School of Basic Medicine, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China.
An-An YinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China. yinanan@aliyun.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1888-5551
Wei LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China. linwei@fmmu.edu.cn.
Ya-Long HeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xijing Institute of Clinical Neuroscience, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032, China. heyl.fmmu@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimControversy remains high over the superiority of advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms to conventional logistic regression (LR) in the prediction of prognosis after traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study aimed to compare the performance of ML and LR models in predicting in-hospital prognosis after TBI.

methodIn a single-center retrospective cohort of adult patients hospitalized for moderate-to-severe TBI (Glasgow coma score ≤12) in our hospital from 2011 to 2020, LR and three ML algorithms (XGboost, lightGBM, and FT-transformer) were run to build prediction models for in-hospital mortality and the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) functional outcomes using either all 19 clinical and laboratory features or the 10 non-laboratory ones collected at admission to the neurological intensive care unit. The Shapley (SHAP) value was used for model interpretation.

resultIn total, 482 patients had an in-hospital mortality rate of 11.0%. A total of 23.0% of the patients had good functional scores (GOS ≥ 4) at discharge. All ML models performed better than the LR model in predicting in-hospital prognosis after TBI, among which the lightGBM model showed the best performance: When predicting mortality, the lightGBM model yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.953 using all 19 features (the LR model: 0.813) and an AUC of 0.935 using 10 non-laboratory features (the LR model: 0.803); when predicting GOS functional outcomes, it yielded an AUC of 0.913 using all 19 features (the LR model: 0.832) and an AUC of 0.889 using non-laboratory data (the LR model: 0.818). The SHAP method identified key contributors to explain the lightGBM models. Finally, the integration of the lightGBM models with different prediction purposes was found to provide refined prognostic information, particularly for patients who survived moderate-to-severe TBI.

conclusionThe study supported the superiority of ML to LR in predicting prognosis after moderate-to-severe TBI and highlighted its potential use for clinical application.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticEast Asian PeopleAdultAlgorithmsHospitalizationHospitalsHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRetrospective StudiesGlasgow Outcome ScaleIn-hospital mortalityMachine learningPredictionTraumatic brain injury

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.