ArticleBMJ open2026
Development and validation of three risk prediction models for clinical deterioration of patients after craniotomy: a retrospective cohort study in China.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to identify a deterioration prediction tool for patients after craniotomy.
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingThree large tertiary hospitals in Hunan Province, China.
participantsBetween January 2018 and March 2020, 1576 patients who underwent craniotomy at three tertiary hospitals in Hunan Province were selected and randomly allocated to either the training or validation sets at a 7:3 ratio. Comprehensive demographic and disease-specific data were collected. Logistic regression, Bayes classification and back propagation neural network were used to construct the models. The Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution method was used to evaluate the efficiency of the models.
resultsThe performance of all three models was commendable. In both the training and validation datasets, the back propagation neural network model demonstrated the highest efficiency, achieving a sensitivity of 77.1%, specificity of 91.7%, correctness of 86.8%, positive predictive value of 82.3% and negative predictive value of 88.9%. Conversely, the Bayes classifier exhibited the lowest predictive efficiency among the models evaluated.
conclusionsWe developed three models to predict clinical deterioration in patients following craniotomy. Among these, the back propagation neural network model demonstrated superior predictive performance. This model serves as a valuable reference for clinical nurses, aiding them in identifying high-risk patients who may deteriorate post-craniotomy.
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.