Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42873412›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2026

Artificial Intelligence for Early Prediction of Intracranial Hypertension: From Single-Centre Development to Multicentre Validation.

Peter Galos, Ludvig Hult, Giuseppe Citerio, Anders Lewén, Anders Hånell, Thomas B Schön, Per Enblad, CENTER-TBI High-Resolution ICU (HR ICU) Sub-Study Participants and Investigators

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Peter Galos *Department of Medical Sciences/Neurosurgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. peter.galos@uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9106-7160
Ludvig Hult *Department of Medical Sciences/Clinical Epidemiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Giuseppe CiterioSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Anders LewénDepartment of Medical Sciences/Neurosurgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anders HånellDepartment of Medical Sciences/Neurosurgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Thomas B SchönDepartment of Information Technology/Division of Systems and Control, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Per EnbladDepartment of Medical Sciences/Neurosurgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
CENTER-TBI High-Resolution ICU (HR ICU) Sub-Study Participants and Investigators

Funding

FP7 Ideas: European Research Council 602150Swedish state ALF agreement between the Swedish governmentSwedish state Uppsala county councilVetenskapsrådet 2022-06725Vetenskapsrådet no. 2018-05973
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceExternal validationIntracranial pressureMachine learningNeurointensive careTraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID42873412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.