| Literature DB >> 34996389 |
Tiange Chen1, Siming Chen1, Yun Wu1, Yilei Chen1, Lei Wang2, Jinfang Liu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progressive haemorrhagic injury after surgery in patients with traumatic brain injury often results in poor patient outcomes. This study aimed to develop and validate a practical predictive tool that can reliably estimate the risk of postoperative progressive haemorrhagic injury (PHI) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).Entities:
Keywords: Nomogram; Progressive haemorrhagic injury; Traumatic brain injury
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34996389 PMCID: PMC8740436 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-021-02541-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population
| Characteristic | PHI (+) | PHI (−) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 54.90 ± 12.73 | 52.08 ± 13.90 | 0.243 | |
| 0.869 | |||
| | 31 (75.61%) | 151 (74.38%) | |
| | 10 (24.39%) | 52 (25.62%) | |
| 134.0 (118.5–155.5) | 129.0 (117.0–134.0) | 0.040 | |
| 77.0 (69.5–85.0) | 76.0 (70.0–80.0) | 0.591 | |
| 80.0 (70.0–90.5) | 80.0 (75.0–90.0) | 0.649 | |
| 37.0 (36.7–37.3) | 37.0 (36.5–37.2) | 0.331 | |
| 8 (6–13) | 9 (7–13) | 0.354 | |
| 6.3 (5.4–7.3) | 6.2 (5.1–7.3) | 0.329 | |
| 1.5 (1.3–2.0) | 1.6 (1.2–2.2) | 0.695 | |
| 67.4 (60.5–71.7) | 67.6 (60.8–72.2) | 0.579 | |
| 68.7 (60.1–75.3) | 66.9 (61.4–72.5) | 0.342 | |
| 104.0 (84.5–143.5) | 149.0 (111.0–205.0) | <0.0001 | |
| 16.2 (15.1–17.0) | 14.3 (13.4–15.5) | <0.0001 | |
| 38.3 (34.5–43.7) | 32.60 (29.1–38.4) | <0.0001 | |
| 2.7 (2.1–3.9) | 3.7 (2.6–4.9) | 0.003 | |
| 1.3 (1.2–1.3) | 1.1 (1.1–1.2) | <0.0001 |
APTT activated partial thromboplastin time, FIB fibrinogen, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, IQR interquartile range, INR international normalised ratio, K kinetics time, MA maximum amplitude, PHI progressive haemorrhagic injury, PLT platelets, PT prothrombin time, R reaction time, SD standard deviation
Fig. 1Screening of the patient cohort for the development of the prediction model
Fig. 2Feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator binary logistic regression model, while the univariate Analysis and Delphi method are used for potential predictor selection
Fig. 3Feature selection using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) binary logistic regression model. A Tuning parameter (λ) selection in the LASSO model using 10-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve was plotted against log (λ). Vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values using the minimum criteria and one standard error of the minimum criteria (the 1-SE criteria). A value of 0.004 with log (λ) of − 5.324 was chosen (1-SE criteria) according to the 10-fold cross-validation. B LASSO coefficient profiles of 16 texture features. A coefficient profile plot was plotted against the log (λ) sequence. Using 10-fold cross-validation, the optimal λ resulted in 11 non-zero coefficients
Logistic regression analysis of clinical candidate predictors in the training set
| Variable | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1.020 (0.986–1.054) | 0.250 | |
| 1.041 (1.012–1.071) | 0.005 | |
| 0.971 (0.927–1.018) | 0.224 | |
| 0.966 (0.937–0.996) | 0.028 | |
| 2.407 (1.120–5.172) | 0.024 | |
| 1.109 (0.867–1.418) | 0.412 | |
| 0.375 (0.214–0.658) | 0.001 | |
| 0.989 (0.980–0.998) | 0.013 | |
| 1.904 (1.361–2.664) | < 0.001 | |
| 1.046 (0.979–1.117) | 0.184 | |
| 0.756 (0.524–1.091) | 0.135 |
APTT activated partial thromboplastin time, FIB fibrinogen, K kinetics time, PLT platelet, PT prothrombin time, R reaction time
Fig. 4Nomogram developed for the prediction of postoperative intracranial progressive haemorrhagic injury in cases of traumatic brain injury
Fig. 5A Receiver operating characteristic curves of the nomogram. B Calibration curves of the nomogram. Illustration of the agreement between the predicted risk of postoperative intracranial PHI(progressive haemorrhagic injury) and the observed outcomes of postoperative PHI in patients with traumatic brain injury
Fig. 6Decision curve analysis for the predictive model