ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2025
Machine Learning Models for Predicting Abnormal Brain CT Scan Findings in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Patients.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for patients with traumatic multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock using an Automated Machine Learning framework: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Need for Early Packed Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Multiple Trauma Patients.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of mortality and severe disability worldwide. This study aimed to develop and optimize machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict abnormal brain computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with mild TBI. Methods: In this retrospective analyses, the outcome was dichotomized into normal or abnormal CT scans, and univariate analyses were employed for feature selection. Then SMOTE was applied to address class imbalance. The dataset was split 80:20 for training/testing, and multiple ML algorithms were evaluated using accuracy, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). SHAP analysis was used to interpret feature contributions. Results: The data included 424 patients with an average age of 40.3 ± 19.1 years (76.65% male). Abnormal brain CT scan findings were more common in older males, patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores, suspected fractures, hematomas, and visible injuries above the clavicle. Among the ML models, XGBoost performed best (AUC 0.9611, accuracy 0.8937), followed by Random Forest, while Naive Bayes showed high recall but poor specificity. SHAP analysis highlighted that lower GCS scores, decreased SpO2 levels, and tachypnea were strong predictors of abnormal brain CT findings. Conclusion: XGBoost and Random Forest achieved high predictive accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. GCS, SpO2, and respiratory rate were key predictors. These models may reduce unnecessary CT scans and optimize resource use. Further multicenter validation is needed to confirm their clinical utility.
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.