Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for the Early Prediction of Doses of Harmful Intracranial Pressure in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment and prevention of elevated intracranial pressure (ICP) is crucial in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Elevated ICP is associated with secondary brain injury, and both intensity and duration of an episode of intracranial hypertension, often referred to as "ICP dose," are associated with worse outcomes. Prediction of such harmful episodes of ICP dose could allow for a more proactive and preventive management of TBI, with potential implications on patients' outcomes. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a machine-learning (ML) model to predict potentially harmful ICP doses in patients with severe TBI. The prediction target was defined based on previous studies and included a broad range of doses of elevated ICP that have been associated with poor long-term neurological outcomes. The ML models were used, with minute-by-minute ICP and mean arterial blood pressure signals as inputs. Harmful ICP episodes were predicted with a 30 min forewarning. Models were developed in a multi-center dataset of 290 adult patients with severe TBI and externally validated on 264 patients from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) dataset. The external validation of the prediction model on the CENTER-TBI dataset demonstrated good discrimination and calibration (area under the curve: 0.94, accuracy: 0.89, precision: 0.87, sensitivity: 0.78, specificity: 0.94, calibration-in-the-large: 0.03, calibration slope: 0.93). The proposed prediction model provides accurate and timely predictions of harmful doses of ICP on the development and external validation dataset. A future interventional study is needed to assess whether early intervention on the basis of ICP dose predictions will result in improved outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".