MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406690585 · doi:10.1101/2025.01.20.25320728

Modeling trajectories of routine blood tests as dynamic biomarkers for outcome in spinal cord injury

2025· preprint· en· W4406690585 on OpenAlexaff
Marzieh Mussavi Rizi, Daniel Fernández, John L. K. Kramer, Rajiv Saigal, Anthony M. DiGiorgio, Michael S. Beattie, Adam R. Ferguson, Nikos Kyritsis, Abel Torres‐Espín

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoCraig H. Neilsen FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineSpinal cord injuryOutcome (game theory)Spinal cordPhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensive care medicineEconomicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Importance Early outcome prediction after acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is challenging due to pathological complexities and population heterogeneity. Routinely collected data during standard medical practice, such as laboratory analytics, can be a surrogate of underlying pathophysiological processes and used as a biomarker. We hypothesized that distinct temporal trends of blood analytics could be modeled after SCI and that those would predict distinct outcome parameters. Objective To test the hypothesis and develop machine learning models for predicting SCI outcomes. Design We developed and validated the models using retrospective data from the MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV datasets and the prospective TRACK-SCI study, covering the period from 2001 to 2020. Setting Multi-center, involving data obtained from intensive care units across several different hospital settings in the United States. Participants Patients 15 years and older with traumatic SCI or vertebral fractures, admitted to emergency facilities, were included, resulting in a final cohort of 2,615 patients for modeling. Exposure(s) NA Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, occurrence of SCI and vertebral fracture in spine trauma patients, and SCI severity measured by the ASIA Impairment Scale. Blood biomarker level trajectory memberships served as predictors. Results Our study analyzed 2,752 patients, comprising 2,615 from the MIMIC dataset and 137 from the TRACK-SCI study. We identified multiple trajectory classes for 20 common blood markers that serve as dynamic predictors in machine learning classifiers. The in-hospital mortality model achieved an area under the Precision-Recall curve (PR-AUC) of 0.92 in the training set by leveraging trajectory data and baseline covariates from as early as day one post-injury. For SCI severity, the models distinguished between complete and incomplete motor outcomes with a PR-AUC of 0.78. The trajectory-based models showed significant improvement over traditional severity scores, such as Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, especially when combined with demographic information. Conclusions and Relevance Real-world routinely obtained blood test data can be used to model dynamic changes after SCI with prediction validity for patient outcomes. This work establishes the basis for further development of dynamic biomarker data for outcome prediction in neurotrauma and other neurological conditions. Key Points Question Can dynamic changes of routinely collected acute blood test data serve as biomarkers to predict outcomes in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI)? Findings In this study using data from the MIMIC and TRACK-SCI datasets, we developed machine learning models that categorize patients into distinct groups based on the temporal and non-linear dynamics of blood biomarkers. These models effectively predicted in-hospital mortality and SCI severity, indicating significant predictive utility from as early as the first day of hospitalization. Meaning The application of dynamic machine learning models to blood test data has potential to significantly predict the prognosis and enhance management of traumatic spinal cord injury in clinical settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→