Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707345›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Prediction analysis of TBI 24-h survival outcome based on machine learning.

Yang Yang, Liulei Zhou, Jinhua Luo, Jianhua Xue, Jiajia Liu, Jiajia Zhang, Ziheng Wang, Peipei Gong, Tianxi Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Machine Learning Approaches to Prognostication in Traumatic Brain Injury.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025
    Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Yang YangDepartment of Trauma Center, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Liulei ZhouDepartment of Trauma Center, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Jinhua LuoDepartment of Anesthesia Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Jianhua XueDepartment of Trauma Center, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Jiajia LiuDepartment of Trauma Center, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Jiajia ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Ziheng WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Peipei GongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.
Tianxi ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, No.20 Xisi Road, Chongchuan District, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, 226001, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNNKNNLRMachine learningRFsurvivalTrauma

Identifiers

PMID38707345
PMCPMC11066620

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.