ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Predictive Modeling of Long-Term Care Needs in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients Using Machine Learning.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) research often focuses on mortality rates or functional recovery, yet the critical need for long-term care among patients dependent on institutional or Respiratory Care Ward (RCW) support remains underexplored. This study aims to address this gap by employing machine learning techniques to develop and validate predictive models that analyze the prognosis of this patient population.
methodRetrospective data from electronic medical records at Chi Mei Medical Center, encompassing 2020 TBI patients admitted to the ICU between January 2016 and December 2021, were collected. A total of 44 features were included, utilizing four machine learning models and various feature combinations based on clinical significance and Spearman correlation coefficients. Predictive performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and validated with the DeLong test and SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis.
resultNotably, 236 patients (11.68%) were transferred to long-term care centers. XGBoost with 27 features achieved the highest AUC (0.823), followed by Random Forest with 11 features (0.817), and LightGBM with 44 features (0.813). The DeLong test revealed no significant differences among the best predictive models under various feature combinations. SHAP analysis illustrated a similar distribution of feature importance for the top 11 features in XGBoost, with 27 features, and Random Forest with 11 features.
conclusionsRandom Forest, with an 11-feature combination, provided clinically meaningful predictive capability, offering early insights into long-term care trends for TBI patients. This model supports proactive planning for institutional or RCW resources, addressing a critical yet often overlooked aspect of TBI care.
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.