ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of prognosis in patients with cerebral contusions based on machine learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global issue and a major cause of patient mortality, and cerebral contusions (CCs) is a common primary TBI. The haemorrhagic progression of a contusion (HPC) poses a significant risk to patients' lives, and effectively predicting changes in haematoma volume is an urgent clinical challenge that needs to be addressed. As a branch of artificial intelligence, machine learning (ML) can proficiently handle a wide range of complex data and identify connections between data for tasks such as prediction and decision making. We collected data from 673 CCs patients who were hospitalized in the neurosurgery department of The First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College (Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College) from September 2019 to September 2022. Selecting three popular machine learning algorithms, Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) to predict hematoma. Machine learning algorithms were run on the Python 3.9 platform. The model was evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, accuracy, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Using sensitivity as the evaluation metric, the best model is DT model. The DT model included the initial haematoma volume, GCS score, Fib level, blood sugar level, multiple CCs, Male, PT, blood sodium level and PLT count. The evaluation indicators of the DT model were as follows: sensitivity = 0.9545 (0.857, 1.0), specificity = 0.9803 (0.9602, 0.9952), F1 score = 0.8936 (0.7742, 0.9778), accuracy = 0.9778 (0.9556, 0.9956), and AUC-ROC = 0.9674 (0.9143, 0.9975). The DT model is the machine learning algorithm most closely aligned with the research objectives, allowing for the scientific and effective prediction of hematoma changes.
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.