ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2026
Machine Learning Models for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality and Pressure Ulcer Development following Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury; A Cross-sectional Study.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) remains a significant cause of long-term disability, with mortality and pressure ulcer (PU) development being key determinants of patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop and interpret machine learning (ML) models for predicting in-hospital mortality and PU formation in TSCI patients using data from the National Spinal Cord Injury Registry of Iran (NSCIR-IR). Methods: Patients with TSCI admitted between 2015 and 2023 were included in the analysis. Data preprocessing included iterative imputation, feature selection with cross-validation, and class balancing using SMOTE. Nine ML algorithms were trained and validated on an 80:20 split dataset. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and other standard metrics. Feature importance and interpretability were evaluated using permutation importance and Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis. Results: A total of 499 patients were included. The LightGBM classifier achieved the highest performance in mortality prediction (AUC = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94), followed by KNN and Naive Bayes. For PU prediction, the Random Forest model performed best (AUC = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.93), outperforming XGBoost and LightGBM. Ventilator use, ASIA grade, and sensory and motor scores were the strongest predictors of mortality, while first aid given, ventilator use, and the number of injured vertebrae were the strongest predictors of PU risk. SHAP analysis confirmed these findings. Conclusion: ML algorithms can accurately identify TSCI patients at high risk of mortality and PU development using routinely collected clinical data. Integrating such interpretable ML tools into early triage systems could enable timely preventive interventions and improve patient outcomes.
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.