Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage prognostic decision-making algorithm using classification and regression tree analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classification and regression tree analysis involves the creation of a decision tree by recursive partitioning of a dataset into more homogeneous subgroups. Thus far, there is scarce literature on using this technique to create clinical prediction tools for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). METHODS: The classification and regression tree analysis technique was applied to the multicenter Tirilazad database (3551 patients) in order to create the decision-making algorithm. In order to elucidate prognostic subgroups in aneurysmal SAH, neurologic, systemic, and demographic factors were taken into account. The dependent variable used for analysis was the dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Score at 3 months. RESULTS: Classification and regression tree analysis revealed seven prognostic subgroups. Neurological grade, occurrence of post-admission stroke, occurrence of post-admission fever, and age represented the explanatory nodes of this decision tree. Split sample validation revealed classification accuracy of 79% for the training dataset and 77% for the testing dataset. In addition, the occurrence of fever at 1-week post-aneurysmal SAH is associated with increased odds of post-admission stroke (odds ratio: 1.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.56-2.45, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A clinically useful classification tree was generated, which serves as a prediction tool to guide bedside prognostication and clinical treatment decision making. This prognostic decision-making algorithm also shed light on the complex interactions between a number of risk factors in determining outcome after aneurysmal SAH.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".