Literature DB >> 26987507

Modern modeling techniques had limited external validity in predicting mortality from traumatic brain injury.

Tjeerd van der Ploeg1, Daan Nieboer2, Ewout W Steyerberg2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Prediction of medical outcomes may potentially benefit from using modern statistical modeling techniques. We aimed to externally validate modeling strategies for prediction of 6-month mortality of patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI) with predictor sets of increasing complexity.
METHODS: We analyzed individual patient data from 15 different studies including 11,026 TBI patients. We consecutively considered a core set of predictors (age, motor score, and pupillary reactivity), an extended set with computed tomography scan characteristics, and a further extension with two laboratory measurements (glucose and hemoglobin). With each of these sets, we predicted 6-month mortality using default settings with five statistical modeling techniques: logistic regression (LR), classification and regression trees, random forests (RFs), support vector machines (SVM) and neural nets. For external validation, a model developed on one of the 15 data sets was applied to each of the 14 remaining sets. This process was repeated 15 times for a total of 630 validations. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the discriminative ability of the models.
RESULTS: For the most complex predictor set, the LR models performed best (median validated AUC value, 0.757), followed by RF and support vector machine models (median validated AUC value, 0.735 and 0.732, respectively). With each predictor set, the classification and regression trees models showed poor performance (median validated AUC value, <0.7). The variability in performance across the studies was smallest for the RF- and LR-based models (inter quartile range for validated AUC values from 0.07 to 0.10).
CONCLUSION: In the area of predicting mortality from TBI, nonlinear and nonadditive effects are not pronounced enough to make modern prediction methods beneficial.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calibration; Discrimination; External validation; Internal validation; Modeling techniques; Prediction models

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26987507     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  14 in total

1.  Accurate and dynamic predictive model for better prediction in medicine and healthcare.

Authors:  H O Alanazi; A H Abdullah; K N Qureshi; A S Ismail
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Can Machine Learning Improve Screening for Targeted Delinquency Prevention Programs?

Authors:  William E Pelham; Hanno Petras; Dustin A Pardini
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2020-02

3.  Perfusion Abnormalities are Frequently Detected by Early CT Perfusion and Predict Unfavourable Outcome Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors:  Cino Bendinelli; Shannon Cooper; Tiffany Evans; Andrew Bivard; Dianne Pacey; Mark Parson; Zsolt J Balogh
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Initial CT-based radiomics nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury: a multicenter development and validation study.

Authors:  Rui-Zhe Zheng; Zhi-Jie Zhao; Xi-Tao Yang; Shao-Wei Jiang; Yong-de Li; Wen-Jie Li; Xiu-Hui Li; Yue Zhou; Cheng-Jin Gao; Yan-Bin Ma; Shu-Ming Pan; Yang Wang
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.307

5.  Pre-injury health status and excess mortality in persons with traumatic brain injury: A decade-long historical cohort study.

Authors:  Tatyana Mollayeva; Mackenzie Hurst; Vincy Chan; Michael Escobar; Mitchell Sutton; Angela Colantonio
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-07-18       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Rethinking PICO in the Machine Learning Era: ML-PICO.

Authors:  Xinran Liu; James Anstey; Ron Li; Chethan Sarabu; Reiri Sono; Atul J Butte
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  Towards personalised intra-arterial treatment of patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a study protocol for development and validation of a clinical decision aid.

Authors:  Maxim J H L Mulder; Esmee Venema; Bob Roozenbeek; Joseph P Broderick; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Olvert A Berkhemer; Yvo B W E M Roos; Charles B L M Majoie; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Aad van der Lugt; Ewout W Steyerberg; Diederik W J Dippel; Hester F Lingsma
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Predicting Outcome of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Potential Value of Machine Learning Algorithms.

Authors:  Hendrikus J A van Os; Lucas A Ramos; Adam Hilbert; Matthijs van Leeuwen; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Nyika D Kruyt; Diederik W J Dippel; Ewout W Steyerberg; Irene C van der Schaaf; Hester F Lingsma; Wouter J Schonewille; Charles B L M Majoie; Silvia D Olabarriaga; Koos H Zwinderman; Esmee Venema; Henk A Marquering; Marieke J H Wermer
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.003

9.  Prediction of Early TBI Mortality Using a Machine Learning Approach in a LMIC Population.

Authors:  Robson Luis Amorim; Louise Makarem Oliveira; Luis Marcelo Malbouisson; Marcia Mitie Nagumo; Marcela Simoes; Leandro Miranda; Edson Bor-Seng-Shu; Andre Beer-Furlan; Almir Ferreira De Andrade; Andres M Rubiano; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira; Angelos G Kolias; Wellingson Silva Paiva
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 4.003

Review 10.  Contribution of CT-Scan Analysis by Artificial Intelligence to the Clinical Care of TBI Patients.

Authors:  Clément Brossard; Benjamin Lemasson; Arnaud Attyé; Jules-Arnaud de Busschère; Jean-François Payen; Emmanuel L Barbier; Jules Grèze; Pierre Bouzat
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 4.003

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.