Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Outcome Prediction Using Machine Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the performance of machine learning (ML) methods for predicting outcomes from inpatient rehabilitation for subjects with TBI using a dataset with a large number of predictor variables. Our second objective was to identify top predictive features selected by the ML models for each outcome and to validate the interpretability of the models. Design: Secondary analysis using computational modeling of relationships between patients, injury and treatment activities and 6 outcomes, applied to the large multi-site, prospective, longitudinal observational dataset collected during the traumatic brain injury inpatient rehabilitation study. Setting: Acute inpatient rehabilitation. Participants: 1946 patients aged 14 years or older, who sustained a severe, moderate, or complicated mild TBI, and were admitted to 1 of 9 US inpatient rehabilitation sites between 2008 and 2011 (N=1946). Main Outcome Measures: Rehabilitation length of stay, discharge to home, FIM cognitive and FIM motor at discharge and at 9-months post discharge. Results: Advanced ML models, specifically gradient boosting tree model, performed consistently better than all other models, including classical linear regression models. Top ranked predictive features were identified for each of the 6 outcome variables. Level of effort, days to rehabilitation admission, age at rehabilitation admission, and advanced mobility activities were the most frequently top ranked predictive features. The highest-ranking predictive feature differed across the specific outcome variable. Conclusions: Identifying patient, injury, and rehabilitation treatment variables that are predictive of better outcomes will contribute to cost-effective care delivery and guide evidence-based clinical practice. ML methods can contribute to these efforts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".