Comparison of machine learning models to predict long-term outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury

被引:7
作者
Arefan, Dooman [1 ]
Pease, Matthew [4 ]
Eagle, Shawn R. [4 ]
Okonkwo, David O. [4 ]
Wu, Shandong [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Radiol, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Biomed Informat, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Bioengn, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[5] Univ Pittsburgh, Intelligent Syst Program, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
关键词
severe traumatic brain injury; machine learning; predictive modeling; Glasgow Outcome Scale; HEAD-INJURY; COHORT;
D O I
10.3171/2023.3.FOCUS2376
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE An estimated 1.5 million people die every year worldwide from traumatic brain injury (TBI). Physicians are relatively poor at predicting long-term outcomes early in patients with severe TBI. Machine learning (ML) has shown promise at improving prediction models across a variety of neurological diseases. The authors sought to explore the following: 1) how various ML models performed compared to standard logistic regression techniques, and 2) if properly calibrated ML models could accurately predict outcomes up to 2 years posttrauma. METHODS A secondary analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with severe TBI treated at a single level 1 trauma center between November 2002 and December 2018 was performed. Neurological outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postinjury with the Glasgow Outcome Scale. The authors used ML models including support vector machine, neural network, decision tree, and naive Bayes models to predict outcome across all 4 time points by using clinical information available on admission, and they compared performance to a logistic regression model. The authors attempted to predict unfavorable versus favorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 1-3 vs 4-5), as well as mortality. Models' performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) with 95% confidence interval and balanced accuracy. RESULTS Of the 599 patients in the database, the authors included 501, 537, 469, and 395 at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months posttrauma. Across all time points, the AUCs ranged from 0.71 to 0.85 for mortality and from 0.62 to 0.82 for unfavorable outcomes with various modeling strategies. Decision tree models performed worse than all other modeling approaches for multiple time points regarding both unfavorable outcomes and mortality. There were no statistically significant differences between any other models. After proper calibration, the models had little variation (0.02-0.05) across various time points. CONCLUSIONS The ML models tested herein performed with equivalent success compared with logistic regression techniques for prognostication in TBI. The TBI prognostication models could predict outcomes beyond 6 months, out to 2 years postinjury.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]   Deep Learning to Predict Traumatic Brain Injury Outcomes in the Low-Resource Setting [J].
Adil, Syed M. ;
Elahi, Cyrus ;
Patel, Dev N. ;
Seas, Andreas ;
Warman, Pranav I. ;
Fuller, Anthony T. ;
Haglund, Michael M. ;
Dunn, Timothy W. .
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 164 :E8-E16
[2]   Prediction of Early TBI Mortality Using a Machine Learning Approach in a LMIC Population [J].
Amorim, Robson Luis ;
Oliveira, Louise Makarem ;
Malbouisson, Luis Marcelo ;
Nagumo, Marcia Mitie ;
Simoes, Marcela ;
Miranda, Leandro ;
Bor-Seng-Shu, Edson ;
Beer-Furlan, Andre ;
De Andrade, Almir Ferreira ;
Rubiano, Andres M. ;
Teixeira, Manoel Jacobsen ;
Kolias, Angelos G. ;
Paiva, Wellingson Silva .
FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, 2020, 10
[3]   Practice guideline update recommendations summary: Disorders of consciousness (vol 91, pg 450, 2018) [J].
Giacino, J. T. ;
Katz, D., I ;
Schiff, N. D. .
NEUROLOGY, 2019, 93 (03) :135-135
[4]   CONTROLLING THE FALSE DISCOVERY RATE - A PRACTICAL AND POWERFUL APPROACH TO MULTIPLE TESTING [J].
BENJAMINI, Y ;
HOCHBERG, Y .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 1995, 57 (01) :289-300
[5]   Prognostication of Mortality and Long-Term Functional Outcomes Following Traumatic Brain Injury: Can We Do Better? [J].
Bonds, Brandon ;
Dhanda, Amit ;
Wade, Christine ;
Diaz, Carla ;
Massetti, Jennifer ;
Stein, Deborah M. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2021, 38 (08) :1168-1176
[6]  
Bossuyt PM, 2015, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V351, DOI [10.1136/bmj.h5527, 10.1148/radiol.2015151516, 10.1373/clinchem.2015.246280]
[7]  
Brodersen Kay H., 2010, Proceedings of the 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2010), P3121, DOI 10.1109/ICPR.2010.764
[8]   Predicting Outcome of Traumatic Brain Injury: Is Machine Learning the Best Way? [J].
Bruschetta, Roberta ;
Tartarisco, Gennaro ;
Lucca, Lucia Francesca ;
Leto, Elio ;
Ursino, Maria ;
Tonin, Paolo ;
Pioggia, Giovanni ;
Cerasa, Antonio .
BIOMEDICINES, 2022, 10 (03)
[9]   Prognosis in Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Models and Validation Studies [J].
Dijkland, Simone A. ;
Foks, Kelly A. ;
Polinder, Suzanne ;
Dippel, Diederik W. J. ;
Maas, Andrew I. R. ;
Lingsma, Hester F. ;
Steyerberg, Ewout W. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2019, :1-13
[10]   Prognostic Models for Traumatic Brain Injury Have Good Discrimination but Poor Overall Model Performance for Predicting Mortality and Unfavorable Outcomes [J].
Eagle, Shawn R. R. ;
Pease, Matthew ;
Nwachuku, Enyinna ;
Deng, Hansen ;
Okonkwo, David O. O. .
NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 92 (01) :137-143