The leap to ordinal: Detailed functional prognosis after traumatic brain injury with a flexible modelling approach.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
20
02
2022
accepted:
21
06
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
7
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
When a patient is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after a traumatic brain injury (TBI), an early prognosis is essential for baseline risk adjustment and shared decision making. TBI outcomes are commonly categorised by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) into eight, ordered levels of functional recovery at 6 months after injury. Existing ICU prognostic models predict binary outcomes at a certain threshold of GOSE (e.g., prediction of survival [GOSE > 1]). We aimed to develop ordinal prediction models that concurrently predict probabilities of each GOSE score. From a prospective cohort (n = 1,550, 65 centres) in the ICU stratum of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) patient dataset, we extracted all clinical information within 24 hours of ICU admission (1,151 predictors) and 6-month GOSE scores. We analysed the effect of two design elements on ordinal model performance: (1) the baseline predictor set, ranging from a concise set of ten validated predictors to a token-embedded representation of all possible predictors, and (2) the modelling strategy, from ordinal logistic regression to multinomial deep learning. With repeated k-fold cross-validation, we found that expanding the baseline predictor set significantly improved ordinal prediction performance while increasing analytical complexity did not. Half of these gains could be achieved with the addition of eight high-impact predictors to the concise set. At best, ordinal models achieved 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74-0.77) ordinal discrimination ability (ordinal c-index) and 57% (95% CI: 54%- 60%) explanation of ordinal variation in 6-month GOSE (Somers' Dxy). Model performance and the effect of expanding the predictor set decreased at higher GOSE thresholds, indicating the difficulty of predicting better functional outcomes shortly after ICU admission. Our results motivate the search for informative predictors that improve confidence in prognosis of higher GOSE and the development of ordinal dynamic prediction models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35788768
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270973
pii: PONE-D-22-05175
pmc: PMC9255749
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0270973Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Neurosurgery. 2015 Jan;76(1):67-80
pubmed: 25525693
J Neurotrauma. 2021 Dec 22;:
pubmed: 34861770
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Oct;18(10):923-934
pubmed: 31526754
J Neurotrauma. 2007 Feb;24(2):329-37
pubmed: 17375997
J Neurotrauma. 2002 Sep;19(9):999-1005
pubmed: 12482113
J Neurotrauma. 2014 Jul 1;31(13):1146-52
pubmed: 24568201
J Neurotrauma. 2019 Jun;36(11):1818-1827
pubmed: 30595128
Stat Med. 2019 Sep 20;38(21):4051-4065
pubmed: 31270850
Stat Med. 2014 Feb 10;33(3):517-35
pubmed: 24002997
Front Neurol. 2017 Jul 10;8:331
pubmed: 28740480
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 17;10(1):22129
pubmed: 33335183
J Neurotrauma. 2012 Jan 1;29(1):47-52
pubmed: 21933014
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Apr;2(4):e179-e191
pubmed: 33328078
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1981 Apr;44(4):285-93
pubmed: 6453957
Crit Care Med. 2012 May;40(5):1609-17
pubmed: 22511138
Sci Rep. 2021 Dec 8;11(1):23654
pubmed: 34880296
Lancet. 1974 Jul 13;2(7872):81-4
pubmed: 4136544
PLoS Med. 2008 Aug 5;5(8):e165; discussion e165
pubmed: 18684008
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jun;74:167-76
pubmed: 26772608
Mach Learn. 2018;107(12):1895-1922
pubmed: 30393425
Med Decis Making. 1991 Apr-Jun;11(2):95-101
pubmed: 1865785
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Sep;92:93-103
pubmed: 29803527
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
Med Decis Making. 1993 Jan-Mar;13(1):49-58
pubmed: 8433637
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 14;13(11):e0206862
pubmed: 30427913
J Neurotrauma. 2018 May 15;35(10):1107-1115
pubmed: 29241396
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jun;16(6):452-464
pubmed: 28504109
Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29
pubmed: 3928249
Ann Neurol. 2013 Feb;73(2):224-35
pubmed: 23224915
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 Feb;74(2):639-46
pubmed: 23354263
J Neurotrauma. 1998 Aug;15(8):573-85
pubmed: 9726257
Biom J. 2012 Sep;54(5):674-85
pubmed: 22711459
Front Neurol. 2017 Jul 20;8:351
pubmed: 28775710
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Oct;47(10):1115-1129
pubmed: 34351445
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 May 7;4(1):78
pubmed: 33963275
Brain. 2019 Nov 1;142(11):3550-3564
pubmed: 31608359
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jul;16(7):532-540
pubmed: 28653646
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:95-107
pubmed: 32201256
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Dec;16(12):987-1048
pubmed: 29122524
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Oct 1;46(5):1372-1378
pubmed: 29025122
Nat Rev Neurol. 2016 Aug;12(8):477-85
pubmed: 27418377
Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):909-44
pubmed: 9595619
J Neurotrauma. 2019 May 15;36(10):1505-1517
pubmed: 30384809
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Aug;13(8):844-54
pubmed: 25030516
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Jul;95(7):1225-8
pubmed: 24732171
Lancet Neurol. 2010 May;9(5):543-54
pubmed: 20398861
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Sep;2(9):e489-e492
pubmed: 32864600
J Neurotrauma. 2020 Jan 1;37(1):1-13
pubmed: 31099301
CMAJ. 2011 Oct 4;183(14):1581-8
pubmed: 21876014
J Neurotrauma. 2018 Sep 1;35(17):2005-2014
pubmed: 29648972
J Neurotrauma. 2021 Feb 15;38(4):455-463
pubmed: 33108942
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 27;9(1):17672
pubmed: 31776366
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 6;16(8):e0253425
pubmed: 34358231
Neurocrit Care. 2013 Dec;19(3):347-63
pubmed: 24132565