It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is typically assessed using the Glasgow outcome scale extended (GOSE) with levels from 1 (death) to 8 (upper good recovery). Outcome prediction has classically been dichotomized into either dead/alive or favorable/unfavorable outcome. Binary outcome prediction models limit the possibility of detecting subtle yet significant improvements. We set out to explore different machine learning methods with the purpose of mapping their predictions to the full 8 grade scale GOSE following TBI. The models were set up using the variables: age, GCS-motor score, pupillary reaction, and Marshall CT score. For model setup and internal validation, a total of 866 patients could be included. For external validation, a cohort of 369 patients were included from Leuven, Belgium, and a cohort of 573 patients from the US multi-center ProTECT III study. Our findings indicate that proportional odds logistic regression (POLR), random forest regression, and a neural network model achieved accuracy values of 0.3–0.35 when applied to internal data, compared to the random baseline which is 0.125 for eight categories. The models demonstrated satisfactory performance during external validation in the data from Leuven, however, their performance were not satisfactory when applied to the ProTECT III dataset.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences Neurosurgery, Uppsala, Sweden (GRID:grid.8993.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9457)
2 Department of Medicine Solna, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Stockholm, Sweden (GRID:grid.8993.b); Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Stockholm, Sweden (GRID:grid.4714.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0626)
3 University Hospitals Leuven, Department of Neurosurgery, Leuven, Belgium (GRID:grid.410569.f) (ISNI:0000 0004 0626 3338)
4 Emory University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (GRID:grid.189967.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7398)
5 Uppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences Neurosurgery, Uppsala, Sweden (GRID:grid.8993.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9457); Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neuroscience, Stockholm, Sweden (GRID:grid.4714.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0626)