ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Optimizing Vital Signs in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: Reinforcement Learning Algorithm Development and Validation.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a critically ill disease with a high mortality rate, and clinical treatment is committed to continuously optimizing treatment strategies to improve survival rates. Objective: This study aims to establish a reinforcement learning algorithm (RL) to optimize the survival prognosis decision-making scheme for patients with TBI in the intensive care unit. Methods: We included a total of 2745 patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database and randomly divided them into a training set and an internal validation set at 8:2. We extracted 34 features for analysis and modeling using a 2-hour time compensation, 2 action features (mean arterial pressure and temperature), and 1 outcome feature (survival status at 28 d). We used an RL algorithm called weighted dueling double deep Q-network with embedded human expertise to maximize cumulative returns and evaluated the model using a doubly robust off-policy evaluation method. Finally, we collected 2463 patients with TBI from MIMIC III as an external validation set to test the model. Results: The action features are divided into 6 intervals, and the expected benefits are estimated using a doubly robust off-policy evaluation method. The results indicate that the survival rate of artificial intelligence (AI) strategies is higher than that of clinical doctors (88.016%, 95% CI 85.191%-90.840% vs 81.094%, 95% CI 80.422%-81.765%), with an expected return of 28.978 (95% CI 28.797-29.160) versus 27.092 (95% CI 24.584-29.600). Compared with clinical doctors, AI algorithms select normal temperatures more frequently (36.56 °C to 36.83 ℃) and recommend mean arterial pressure levels of 87.5-95.0 mm Hg. In external validation, the AI strategy still has a high survival rate of 87.565%, with an expected return of 27.517. Conclusions: This RL algorithm for patients with TBI indicates that a more personalized and targeted optimization of the vital signs is possible. This algorithm will assist clinicians in making decisions on an individualized patient-by-patient basis.
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.