Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212559›Full record

SynthesisNeurocritical care2024

Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict Intracranial Hypertension in Patients After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

S T van Hal, M van der Jagt, M E van Genderen, D Gommers, J F Veenland

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Updates on Pathophysiology and Diagnosis.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Update on traumatic brain injury in the ICU.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025
    Review
  10. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S T van HalDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Room Ne-413, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands. s.vanhal@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-8842-1322
M van der JagtDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Room Ne-413, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.
M E van GenderenDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Room Ne-413, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.
D GommersDepartment of Adult Intensive Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Room Ne-413, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.
J F VeenlandDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracranial hypertension (IH) is a key driver of secondary brain injury in patients with traumatic brain injury. Lowering intracranial pressure (ICP) as soon as IH occurs is important, but a preemptive approach would be more beneficial. We systematically reviewed the artificial intelligence (AI) models, variables, performances, risks of bias, and clinical machine learning (ML) readiness levels of IH prediction models using AI. We conducted a systematic search until 12-03-2023 in three databases. Only studies predicting IH or ICP in patients with traumatic brain injury with a validation of the AI model were included. We extracted type of AI model, prediction variables, model performance, validation type, and prediction window length. Risk of bias was assessed with the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, and we determined the clinical ML readiness level. Eleven out of 399 nonduplicate publications were included. A gaussian processes model using ICP and mean arterial pressure was most common. The maximum reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.94. Four studies conducted external validation, and one study a prospective clinical validation. The prediction window length preceding IH varied between 30 and 60 min. Most studies (73%) had high risk of bias. The highest clinical ML readiness level was 6 of 9, indicating "real-time model testing" stage in one study. Several IH prediction models using AI performed well, were externally validated, and appeared ready to be tested in the clinical workflow (clinical ML readiness level 5 of 9). A Gaussian processes model was most used, and ICP and mean arterial pressure were frequently used variables. However, most studies showed a high risk of bias. Our findings may help position AI for IH prediction on the path to ultimate clinical integration and thereby guide researchers plan and design future studies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBrain Injuries, TraumaticIntracranial HypertensionHumansIntracranial PressureMachine LearningArtificial intelligenceIntracranial hypertensionPredictionTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID38212559
PMCPMC11335950
OpenAlexW4390733388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.