Comparing blood biomarkers to clinical decision rules to select patients suspected of traumatic brain injury for head computed tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health concern in the U.S. Recommendations for patients admitted in the emergency department (ED) to receive head computed tomography (CT) scan are currently guided by various clinical decision rules. OBJECTIVE: To compare how a blood biomarker approach compares with clinical decision rules in terms of predicting a positive head CT in adult patients suspected of TBI. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients transported to our emergency department and underwent a noncontrast head CT due to suspicion of TBI and who had blood samples available. Published thresholds for serum and plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1), and serum S100β were used to make CT recommendations. These blood biomarker-based recommendations were compared to those achieved under widely used clinical head CT decision rules (Canadian, New Orleans, NEXUS II, and ACEP Clinical Policy). RESULTS: Our study included 463 patients, of which 122 (26.3%) had one or more abnormalities presenting on head CT. Individual blood biomarkers achieved high negative predictive value (NPV) for abnormal head CT findings (88%-98%), although positive predictive value (PPV) was consistently low (25%-42%). A composite biomarker-based decision rule (GFAP+UCH-L1)'s NPV of 100% and PPV of 29% were comparable or better than those achieved under the clinical decision rules. CONCLUSION: Blood biomarkers perform at least as well as clinical rules in terms of selecting TBI patients for head CT and may be easier to implement in the clinical setting. A prospective study is necessary to validate this approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".