ArticleHeliyon2024
Prediction analysis of TBI 24-h survival outcome based on machine learning.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of early temperature trajectories on clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury: a multicenter validation study using machine learning.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Use of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and prognosis of traumatic brain injury: a scoping review.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Identification of metastasis-related genes for predicting prostate cancer diagnosis, metastasis and immunotherapy drug candidates using machine learning approaches.Biology direct · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the major reason for the death of young people and is well known for its high mortality and morbidity. This paper aim to predict the 24h survival of patients with TBI. Methods: A total of 1224 samples were involved in this analysis, and the clinical indicators involved included age, gender, blood pressure, MGAP and other fields, among which the target variable was "outcome", which was a binary variable. The methods mainly involved in this paper include data visualization analysis, single factor analysis, feature engineering analysis, random forest model (RF), K-Nearst Neighbors (KNN) model, and so on. Logistic regression model (LR) and deep neural network model (DNN). We will oversample the training set using the SMOTE method because of the very unbalanced labeling of the sample itself. Results: Although the accuracy of all models is very high, the recall rate is relatively low. The DNN model with the best performance only reaches 0.17, and the corresponding AUC is 0.80. After resampling, we find that the recall rate of positive samples of all models has increased a lot, but the AUC of some models has decreased. Finally, the optimal model is LR, whose positive sample recall rate is 0.67 and AUC is 0.82. Conclusion: Through resampling, we obtained that the best model is the RF model, whose recall rate and AUC are the best, and the AUC level is about 0.87, indicating that the accuracy performance of the model is still good.
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.