Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40189670›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2025

Is artificial intelligence superior to traditional regression methods in predicting prognosis of adult traumatic brain injury?

Matheus Ballestero, Leandro Candido de Souza, Alexandre Luis Magalhães Levada, Rodrigo Inácio Pongeluppi, Stephanie Naomi Funo, Felipe Gutierrez Pineda, Benedicto Oscar Colli, Ricardo Santos de Oliveira

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Matheus BallesteroMedicine Department, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil. ballestero@gmail.com.
Leandro Candido de SouzaMedicine Department, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.
Alexandre Luis Magalhães LevadaComputing Department, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.
Rodrigo Inácio PongeluppiDivision of Neurosurgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Stephanie Naomi FunoDivision of Neurosurgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Felipe Gutierrez PinedaSchool of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia.
Benedicto Oscar ColliDivision of Neurosurgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ricardo Santos de OliveiraDivision of Neurosurgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2022/03313-9
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant global health issue with high morbidity and mortality rates. Recent studies have shown that machine learning algorithms outperform traditional logistic regression models in predicting functional outcomes for TBI patients. This research aimed to compare the accuracy of the binomial logistic regression model with the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) machine learning model. The study included 5056 adult TBI patients evaluated using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). The XGBoost model was trained on 80% of the sample and tested on the remaining 20%. The logistic regression model accurately predicted 59.7% of unfavorable outcomes, with a significant impact of variables like age and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The ROC curve analysis showed an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.942, indicating the model's predictive ability. The XGBoost algorithm achieved an accuracy of 0.89, AUC of 0.83. The most critical variables in the XGBoost model were days of hospitalization, age, systolic blood pressure, ICU length of stay, GCS and respiratory rate. The XGBoost algorithm performed better in accuracy for predicting unfavorable outcomes, while logistic regression was superior in terms of the ROC curve. Further studies are needed to fine-tune the algorithm's hyperparameters and develop models applicable in clinical settings. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBrain Injuries, TraumaticAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleGlasgow Coma ScaleGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisROC CurveYoung AdultData AccuracyLogistic ModelsMachine LearningPrognosisTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.