SynthesisNeurocritical care2024
Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict Intracranial Hypertension in Patients After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Clinical Trials for Central Nervous System Injuries.Current neuropharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Updates on Pathophysiology and Diagnosis.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026Review
- A scoping review on the essential role of global neurotrauma in achieving the sustainable development goals.Discover public health · 2026Review
- Multifactorial Biomarkers for "Talk and Deteriorate" after Head Trauma Identified Using Machine Learning.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for CSF Segmentation and Analysis in Head CT Imaging: A Systematic Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Review
- Machine Learning Based Prediction of Imminent ICP Insults During Neurocritical Care of Traumatic Brain Injury.Neurocritical care · 2025Article
- Update on traumatic brain injury in the ICU.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Probability density and information entropy of machine learning derived intracranial pressure predictions.PloS one · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.