ArticleSpinal cord2023
Machine learning to develop a predictive model of pressure injury in persons with spinal cord injury.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: Promising Applications and Strategies for Managing Data Challenges.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Predicting Spinal Cord Injury Prognosis Using Machine Learning: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR AI · 2025Review
- Electronic-Medical-Record-Driven Machine Learning Predictive Model for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: Development and External Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning predicts improvement of functional outcomes in spinal cord injury patients after inpatient rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- The Changing Prevalence of Pressure Injury among Ontarians with SCI/D at Rehabilitation Admission: Opportunities for Improvement.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Integrated Machine Learning Approach for the Early Prediction of Pressure Ulcers in Spinal Cord Injury Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
37598263What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.