We have located links that may give you full text access.
Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Model for the Prediction of Early Death after Traumatic Brain Injury: Comparison with the Corticosteroid Randomization after Significant Head Injury (CRASH) Model.
World Neurosurgery 2022 July 2
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) has been used to predict the outcomes of traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, few studies have reported the use of ML models to predict early death. This study aimed to develop ML models for early death prediction and to compare performance with the corticosteroid randomization after significant head injury (CRASH) model.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed TBI patients between February 2017 and August 2021. The patients were randomly assigned to a training set and a test set. Predictive variables included clinical findings, laboratory values, and computed tomography findings. The ML models (random forest, support vector machine [SVM], logistic regression) were developed with the training set. The CRASH model is a prognostic model that was developed based on 10,008 patients included in the CRASH trial. The ML and CRASH models were applied to the test set to evaluate the performance.
RESULTS: A total of 423 patients were included; 317 and 106 patients were randomly assigned to the training and test sets, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was highest in the SVM (0.952, 95% CI 0.906-0.990) and lowest in the CRASH model (0.942, 95% CI 0.886-0.999). There were no significant differences between the AUCs of the ML and CRASH models (P =.899 for random forest versus the CRASH model, P =.760 for SVM versus the CRASH model, P =.806 for logistic regression versus the CRASH model).
CONCLUSIONS: The ML models may have comparable performances compared to the CRASH model despite being developed with a smaller sample size.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed TBI patients between February 2017 and August 2021. The patients were randomly assigned to a training set and a test set. Predictive variables included clinical findings, laboratory values, and computed tomography findings. The ML models (random forest, support vector machine [SVM], logistic regression) were developed with the training set. The CRASH model is a prognostic model that was developed based on 10,008 patients included in the CRASH trial. The ML and CRASH models were applied to the test set to evaluate the performance.
RESULTS: A total of 423 patients were included; 317 and 106 patients were randomly assigned to the training and test sets, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was highest in the SVM (0.952, 95% CI 0.906-0.990) and lowest in the CRASH model (0.942, 95% CI 0.886-0.999). There were no significant differences between the AUCs of the ML and CRASH models (P =.899 for random forest versus the CRASH model, P =.760 for SVM versus the CRASH model, P =.806 for logistic regression versus the CRASH model).
CONCLUSIONS: The ML models may have comparable performances compared to the CRASH model despite being developed with a smaller sample size.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app