ArticleNeurocritical care2025
An Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Early Neurological Deterioration Following Posttraumatic Acute Diffuse Brain Swelling.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroworsening in traumatic brain injury: A consensus of the Latin American Brain Injury Consortium (LABIC) and the Latin American Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (FLANC) expert group.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Early Neurological Deterioration Prediction Model May Focus on Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Populations.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Early Neurological Deterioration Prediction Model May Focus on Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Populations.Neurocritical care · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiffuse brain swelling (DBS) significantly contributes to intracranial hypertension and poses a substantial risk of early neurological deterioration (END). This study aimed to develop and validate various machine learning (ML) models for predicting END in patients with traumatic DBS.
methodsClinical data were retrospectively collected from 208 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with traumatic DBS on admission (within 6 h after injury) at two centers. END was assessed within 72 h of admission, and predictors for END were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Six ML algorithms were trained to develop prediction models. The performance of the ML models was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Brier score, and decision curve analysis and was externally verified in the validation cohort. The optimal model was internally cross-validated, interpreted using Shapley Additive Explanations, and ultimately deployed as a Web-based risk calculator.
resultsA total of 79 patients experienced END, with an incidence of 38.0%. The four confirmed predictors of END were subdural hemorrhage, severe traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, hemoglobin levels, and fibrinogen levels. The extreme gradient boosting model outperformed the other five models in discrimination, achieving an AUROC of 0.879, and had better calibration and clinical utility. This model had an acceptable generalizability, achieving mean AUROCs of 0.762 ± 0.033 and 0.770 ± 0.109 in fivefold and tenfold cross-validations, respectively, and an AUROC of 0.862 in the validation cohort.
conclusionsThe developed ML model shows clinical promise in accurately predicting END following traumatic DBS. However, multicenter external validation remains essential before its widespread clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40789804What 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.