ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Artificial Intelligence for Early Prediction of Intracranial Hypertension: From Single-Centre Development to Multicentre Validation.
Article in Neurocritical care, 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
Abstract
backgroundRaised intracranial pressure is one of the most severe secondary insults after traumatic brain injury. Recognising physiological patterns before they progress to dangerous intracranial pressure elevations could enable preventive rather than reactive interventions. In our previous Uppsala single-centre study, an XGBoost machine learning model showed high discriminative performance for prediction of imminent intracranial pressure insults. The model identifies short-term physiological trajectories associated with imminent threshold crossing rather than predicting independent future clinical events. Whether these results are generalisable across centres is unknown. The aim was therefore to evaluate whether the XGBoost model trained on an Uppsala dataset maintains similar performance when applied to a multicentre TBI cohort - The CENTER-TBI High-Resolution ICU cohort.
methodsThe XGBoost model trained on the Uppsala high frequency traumatic brain injury cohort was externally validated using data from the multicentre CENTER-TBI cohort. Minute-level averages of intracranial pressure and invasive arterial blood pressure were used to predict the onset of an intracranial pressure insult within 30 min on the basis of a 4h historical window. A bidirectional validation design was applied and performance was assessed using multiple metrics.
resultsThe cohorts comprised 602 patients from Uppsala and 255 patients from the CENTER-TBI database. When trained on the Uppsala cohort and tested on CENTER-TBI, the model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 97.4%, sensitivity of 93.8%, and specificity of 98.6%. Training on CENTER-TBI and testing on the Uppsala dataset yielded an AUROC of 96.1%, sensitivity of 81.2%, and specificity of 98.7%. Balanced accuracy exceeded 88% in both validation directions.
conclusionsThe XGBoost model retained high performance under external multicentre validation, indicating that pre-insult physiological patterns preceding increased intracranial pressure are shared across cohorts. Differences in sensitivity between validation directions were observed and may reflect cohort characteristics or dataset size. These findings support the need for local evaluation before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873412What 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.