ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
Mining the contribution of intensive care clinical course to outcome after traumatic brain injury.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurofilament Light Chain (NfL) in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Biological and Clinical Significance, Multi-Omics Integration, and AI-Driven Biomarker Modeling for Precision Therapy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in intensive care units: a scoping review addressing the translational gap to clinical practice.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Article
- GFAP degradation in TBI: linking novel modified products to astrocyte pathology and patient outcome.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2026Article
- Artificially mineralized bio-cascade enzyme-catalyzed probes for immunoassay of neuron-specific enolase with neuroblastoma diagnostics.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Article
- Clinical Assessment on Days 1-14 for the Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury: Recommendations from the 2024 NINDS Traumatic Brain Injury Classification and Nomenclature Initiative Clinical/Symptoms Working Group.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- ASA score is an independent predictor of 1-year outcome after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- TILTomorrow today: dynamic factors predicting changes in intracranial pressure treatment intensity after traumatic brain injury.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Influence of apolipoprotein E genotype on the proteomic profile in cerebral microdialysis after human severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Dynamic assessment of signal entropy for prognostication and secondary brain insult detection after traumatic brain injury.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Therapy Intensity Level Scale for Traumatic Brain Injury: Clinimetric Assessment on Neuro-Monitored Patients Across 52 European Intensive Care Units.Journal of neurotrauma · 2024Article
- Data-driven distillation and precision prognosis in traumatic brain injury with interpretable machine learning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Existing methods to characterise the evolving condition of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) do not capture the context necessary for individualising treatment. Here, we integrate all heterogenous data stored in medical records (1166 pre-ICU and ICU variables) to model the individualised contribution of clinical course to 6-month functional outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Scale -Extended (GOSE). On a prospective cohort (n = 1550, 65 centres) of TBI patients, we train recurrent neural network models to map a token-embedded time series representation of all variables (including missing values) to an ordinal GOSE prognosis every 2 h. The full range of variables explains up to 52% (95% CI: 50-54%) of the ordinal variance in functional outcome. Up to 91% (95% CI: 90-91%) of this explanation is derived from pre-ICU and admission information (i.e., static variables). Information collected in the ICU (i.e., dynamic variables) increases explanation (by up to 5% [95% CI: 4-6%]), though not enough to counter poorer overall performance in longer-stay (>5.75 days) patients. Highest-contributing variables include physician-based prognoses, CT features, and markers of neurological function. Whilst static information currently accounts for the majority of functional outcome explanation after TBI, data-driven analysis highlights investigative avenues to improve the dynamic characterisation of longer-stay patients. Moreover, our modelling strategy proves useful for converting large patient records into interpretable time series with missing data integration and minimal processing.
Identifiers
What 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.