ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Is artificial intelligence superior to traditional regression methods in predicting prognosis of adult traumatic brain injury?
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
40189670What 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.