0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prediction of intracranial pressure crises after severe traumatic brain injury using machine learning algorithms

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE

          Avoiding intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a foundation of neurocritical care, to minimize secondary brain injury related to elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). However, this approach at best is reactive to episodes of intracranial hypertension, allowing for periods of elevated ICP before therapies can be initiated. Accurate prediction of ICP crises before they occur would permit clinicians to implement preventive strategies, minimize total time with ICP above threshold, and potentially avoid secondary injury. The objective of this study was to develop an algorithm capable of predicting the onset of ICP crises with sufficient lead time to enable application of preventative therapies.

          METHODS

          Thirty-six patients admitted to a level I trauma center with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score < 8) between April 2015 and January 2019 who underwent continuous intraparenchymal ICP monitor placement were retrospectively identified. Continuous ICP data were extracted from each monitoring period (range 4–96 hours of monitoring). An ICP crisis was treated as a binary outcome, defined as ICP > 22 mm Hg for at least 75% of the data within a 5-minute interval. ICP data preceding each ICP crisis were grouped into four total data sets of 1- and 2-hour epochs, each with 10- to 20-minute lead-time intervals before an ICP crisis. Crisis and noncrisis events were identified from continuous time-series data and randomly split into 70% for training and 30% for testing, from a subset of 30 patients. Machine learning algorithms were trained to predict ICP crises, including light gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, and random forest. Accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were measured to compare performance. The most predictive algorithm was optimized using feature selection and hyperparameter tuning to avoid overfitting, and then tested on a validation subset of 5 patients. Precision, recall, F1 score, and accuracy were measured.

          RESULTS

          The random forest model demonstrated the highest accuracy (range 0.82–0.88) and AUC (range 0.86–0.88) across all four data sets. Further validation testing revealed high precision (0.76), relatively low recall (0.46), and overall strong predictive performance (F1 score 0.57, accuracy 0.86) for ICP crises. Decision curve analysis showed that the model provided net benefit at probability thresholds above 0.1 and below 0.9.

          CONCLUSIONS

          The presented model can provide accurate and timely forecasts of ICP crises in patients with severe TBI 10–20 minutes prior to their occurrence. If validated and implemented in clinical workflows, this algorithm can enable earlier intervention for ICP crises, more effective treatment of intracranial hypertension, and potentially improved outcomes following severe TBI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

          Diagnostic and prognostic models are typically evaluated with measures of accuracy that do not address clinical consequences. Decision-analytic techniques allow assessment of clinical outcomes but often require collection of additional information and may be cumbersome to apply to models that yield a continuous result. The authors sought a method for evaluating and comparing prediction models that incorporates clinical consequences,requires only the data set on which the models are tested,and can be applied to models that have either continuous or dichotomous results. The authors describe decision curve analysis, a simple, novel method of evaluating predictive models. They start by assuming that the threshold probability of a disease or event at which a patient would opt for treatment is informative of how the patient weighs the relative harms of a false-positive and a false-negative prediction. This theoretical relationship is then used to derive the net benefit of the model across different threshold probabilities. Plotting net benefit against threshold probability yields the "decision curve." The authors apply the method to models for the prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer patients. Decision curve analysis identified the range of threshold probabilities in which a model was of value, the magnitude of benefit, and which of several models was optimal. Decision curve analysis is a suitable method for evaluating alternative diagnostic and prognostic strategies that has advantages over other commonly used measures and techniques.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of a Machine Learning–Derived Early Warning System for Intraoperative Hypotension vs Standard Care on Depth and Duration of Intraoperative Hypotension During Elective Noncardiac Surgery: The HYPE Randomized Clinical Trial

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Time Series FeatuRe Extraction on basis of Scalable Hypothesis tests (tsfresh – A Python package)

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Neurosurgery
                Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)
                0022-3085
                1933-0693
                August 01 2023
                August 01 2023
                : 139
                : 2
                : 528-535
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Departments of Neurosurgery and
                [2 ]Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
                [3 ]IBM Corp., Armonk, New York
                Article
                10.3171/2022.12.JNS221860
                36708534
                6bee6317-49a8-48ac-95f1-0d563972959b
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article