Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37598263›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2023

Machine learning to develop a predictive model of pressure injury in persons with spinal cord injury.

Stephen L Luther, Susan S Thomason, Sunil Sabharwal, Dezon K Finch, James McCart, Peter Toyinbo, Lina Bouayad, William Lapcevic, Bridget Hahm, Ronald G Hauser and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

12 authors.

Stephen L LutherResearch Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA. Steve.Luther@va.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-7524-7380
Susan S ThomasonTampa VA Research and Education Foundation, Inc, Tampa, FL, USA.
Sunil SabharwalVA Boston Health Care System, Spinal Cord Injury Service, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Dezon K FinchResearch Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.
James McCartResearch Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.
Peter ToyinboResearch Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3387-3943
Lina BouayadCollege of Business, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9999-4989
William LapcevicResearch Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.
Bridget HahmResearch Service, James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7454-4471
Ronald G HauserYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7361-7162
Michael E MathenyGeriatrics Research Education and Clinical Care, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA.
Gail Powell-CopeUniversity of California, School of Nursing, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4608-0128

Funding

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) IIR 10-169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designA 5-year longitudinal, retrospective, cohort study.

objectivesDevelop a prediction model based on electronic health record (EHR) data to identify veterans with spinal cord injury/diseases (SCI/D) at highest risk for new pressure injuries (PIs).

settingStructured (coded) and text EHR data, for veterans with SCI/D treated in a VHA SCI/D Center between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2013.

methodsA total of 4709 veterans were available for analysis after randomly selecting 175 to act as a validation (gold standard) sample. Machine learning models were created using ten-fold cross validation and three techniques: (1) two-step logistic regression; (2) regression model employing adaptive LASSO; (3) and gradient boosting. Models based on each method were compared using area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC) analysis.

resultsThe AUC value for the gradient boosting model was 0.62 (95% CI = 0.54-0.70), for the logistic regression model it was 0.67 (95% CI = 0.59-0.75), and for the adaptive LASSO model it was 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65-80). Based on these results, the adaptive LASSO model was chosen for interpretation. The strongest predictors of new PI cases were having fewer total days in the hospital in the year before the annual exam, higher vs. lower weight and most severe vs. less severe grade of injury based on the American Spinal Cord Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale.

conclusionsWhile the analyses resulted in a potentially useful predictive model, clinical implications were limited because modifiable risk factors were absent in the models.

Indexed as

Pressure UlcerSpinal Cord DiseasesSpinal Cord InjuriesCohort StudiesHumansMachine LearningRetrospective Studies

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.