Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38950055›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Probability density and information entropy of machine learning derived intracranial pressure predictions.

Anmar Abdul-Rahman, William Morgan, Aleksandar Vukmirovic, Dao-Yi Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

Anmar Abdul-RahmanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0812-8944
William MorganCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Aleksandar VukmirovicCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0723-6334
Dao-Yi YuCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even with the powerful statistical parameters derived from the Extreme Gradient Boost (XGB) algorithm, it would be advantageous to define the predicted accuracy to the level of a specific case, particularly when the model output is used to guide clinical decision-making. The probability density function (PDF) of the derived intracranial pressure predictions enables the computation of a definite integral around a point estimate, representing the event's probability within a range of values. Seven hold-out test cases used for the external validation of an XGB model underwent retinal vascular pulse and intracranial pressure measurement using modified photoplethysmography and lumbar puncture, respectively. The definite integral ±1 cm water from the median (DIICP) demonstrated a negative and highly significant correlation (-0.5213±0.17, p< 0.004) with the absolute difference between the measured and predicted median intracranial pressure (DiffICPmd). The concordance between the arterial and venous probability density functions was estimated using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, extending the distribution agreement across all data points. This parameter showed a statistically significant and positive correlation (0.4942±0.18, p< 0.001) with DiffICPmd. Two cautionary subset cases (Case 8 and Case 9), where disagreement was observed between measured and predicted intracranial pressure, were compared to the seven hold-out test cases. Arterial predictions from both cautionary subset cases converged on a uniform distribution in contrast to all other cases where distributions converged on either log-normal or closely related skewed distributions (gamma, logistic, beta). The mean±standard error of the arterial DIICP from cases 8 and 9 (3.83±0.56%) was lower compared to that of the hold-out test cases (14.14±1.07%) the between group difference was statistically significant (p<0.03). Although the sample size in this analysis was limited, these results support a dual and complementary analysis approach from independently derived retinal arterial and venous non-invasive intracranial pressure predictions. Results suggest that plotting the PDF and calculating the lower order moments, arterial DIICP, and the two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic may provide individualized predictive accuracy parameters.

Indexed as

Intracranial PressureMachine LearningProbabilityAdultAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38950055
PMCPMC11216561

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.