Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37652865›Full record

ArticleAcute and critical care2023

Comparison of intracranial pressure prediction in hydrocephalus patients among linear, non-linear, and machine learning regression models in Thailand.

Avika Trakulpanitkit, Thara Tunthanathip

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acute and critical care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prognosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage determined by intracranial pressure thresholds.Journal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Avika TrakulpanitkitDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand.
Thara TunthanathipDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand.
Prince of Songkla University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHydrocephalus (HCP) is one of the most significant concerns in neurosurgical patients because it can cause increased intracranial pressure (ICP), resulting in mortality and morbidity. To date, machine learning (ML) has been helpful in predicting continuous outcomes. The primary objective of the present study was to identify the factors correlated with ICP, while the secondary objective was to compare the predictive performances among linear, non-linear, and ML regression models for ICP prediction.

methodsA total of 412 patients with various types of HCP who had undergone ventriculostomy was retrospectively included in the present study, and intraoperative ICP was recorded following ventricular catheter insertion. Several clinical factors and imaging parameters were analyzed for the relationship with ICP by linear correlation. The predictive performance of ICP was compared among linear, non-linear, and ML regression models.

resultsOptic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) had a moderately positive correlation with ICP (r=0.530, P<0.001), while several ventricular indexes were not statistically significant in correlation with ICP. For prediction of ICP, random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithms had low mean absolute error and root mean square error values and high R2 values compared to linear and non-linear regression when the predictive model included ONSD and ventricular indexes.

conclusionsThe XGBoost and RF algorithms are advantageous for predicting preoperative ICP and establishing prognoses for HCP patients. Furthermore, ML-based prediction could be used as a non-invasive method.

Indexed as

hydrocephalusintracranial pressurelinear regressionmachine learningprediction

Identifiers

PMID37652865
PMCPMC10497900
OpenAlexW4386028592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.