Addressing the Challenges of Obtaining Functional Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury Research: Missing Data Patterns, Timing of Follow-Up, and Three Prognostic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is common and debilitating. Randomized trials of interventions for TBI ideally assess effectiveness by using long-term functional neurological outcomes, but such outcomes are difficult to obtain and costly. If there is little change between functional status at hospital discharge versus 6 months, then shorter-term outcomes may be adequate for use in future clinical trials. Using data from a previously published multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled TBI clinical trial, we evaluated patterns of missing outcome data, changes in functional status between hospital discharge and 6 months, and three prognostic models to predict long-term functional outcome from covariates available at hospital discharge (functional measures, demographics, and injury characteristics). The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Hypertonic Saline trial enrolled 1282 TBI patients, obtaining the primary outcome of 6-month Glasgow Outcome Score Extended (GOSE) for 85% of patients, but missing the primary outcome for the remaining 15%. Patients with missing outcomes had less-severe injuries, higher neurological function at discharge (GOSE), and shorter hospital stays than patients whose GOSE was obtained. Of 1066 (83%) patients whose GOSE was obtained both at hospital discharge and at 6-months, 71% of patients had the same dichotomized functional status (severe disability/death vs. moderate/no disability) after 6 months as at discharge, 28% had an improved functional status, and 1% had worsened. Performance was excellent (C-statistic between 0.88 and 0.91) for all three prognostic models and calibration adequate for two models (p values, 0.22 and 0.85). Our results suggest that multiple imputation of the standard 6-month GOSE may be reasonable in TBI research when the primary outcome cannot be obtained through other means.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".