Predicting outcomes after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury using artificial intelligence: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methodological standards of existing clinical AI research remain poorly characterized and may partially explain the implementation gap between model development and meaningful clinical translation. This systematic review aims to identify AI-based methods to predict outcomes after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), where prognostic uncertainty is highest. The APPRAISE-AI quantitative appraisal tool was used to evaluate methodological quality. We identified 39 studies comprising 592,323 patients with moderate to severe TBI. The weakest domains were methodological conduct (median score 35%), robustness of results (20%), and reproducibility (35%). Higher journal impact factor, larger sample size, more recent publication year and use of data collected in high-income countries were associated with higher APPRAISE-AI scores. Most models were trained or validated using patient populations from high-income countries, underscoring the lack of diverse development datasets and possible generalizability concerns applying models outside these settings. Given its recent development, the APPRAISE-AI tool requires ongoing measurement property assessment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".