ArticleScientific reports2024
Utilizing ultra-early continuous physiologic data to develop automated measures of clinical severity in a traumatic brain injury population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid prediction of cerebral edema on CT scan after traumatic brain injury.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Determination of prognosis in the triage process after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is difficult to achieve. Current severity measures like the Trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) and revised trauma score (RTS) rely on additional information from the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) which may be inaccurate or delayed, limiting their usefulness in the rapid triage setting. We hypothesized that machine learning based estimations of GCS and ISS obtained through modeling of continuous vital sign features could be used to rapidly derive an automated RTS and TRISS. We derived variables from electrocardiograms (ECG), photoplethysmography (PPG), and blood pressure using continuous data obtained in the first 15 min of admission to build machine learning models of GCS and ISS (ML-GCS and ML-ISS). We compared the TRISS and RTS using ML-ISS and ML-GCS and its value using the actual ISS and GCS in predicting in-hospital mortality. Models were tested in TBI with systemic injury (head abbreviated injury scale (AIS) ≥ 1), and isolated TBI (head AIS ≥ 1 and other AIS ≤ 1). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to evaluate model performance. A total of 21,077 cases (2009-2015) were in the training set. 6057 cases from 2016 to 2017 were used for testing, with 472 (7.8%) severe TBI (GCS 3-8), 223 (3.7%) moderate TBI (GCS 9-12), and 5913 (88.5%) mild TBI (GCS 13-15). In the TBI with systemic injury group, ML-TRISS had similar AUROC (0.963) to TRISS (0.965) in predicting mortality. ML-RTS had AUROC (0.823) and RTS had AUROC 0.928. In the isolated TBI group, ML-TRISS had AUROC 0.977, and TRISS had AUROC 0.983. ML-RTS had AUROC 0.790 and RTS had AUROC 0.957. Estimation of ISS and GCS from machine learning based modeling of vital sign features can be utilized to provide accurate assessments of the RTS and TRISS in a population of TBI patients. Automation of these scores could be utilized to enhance triage and resource allocation during the ultra-early phase of resuscitation.
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.