nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Predicting Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury Using Machine Learning Models

verfasst von : Nor Safira Elaina Mohd Noor, Haidi Ibrahim

Erschienen in: Intelligent Manufacturing and Mechatronics

Verlag: Springer Singapore

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is defined as blunt and penetrating injury to the head and/or brain caused by an external force that leads to temporary or permanent impairments to the brain function. Accurate measurement of prediction for the outcomes of affected individual is highly desirable to plan and optimize treatment decision. The clinical experts predict the outcomes of brain injury patients with a high degree of accuracy based on their experience and the standardized Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). The GOS has been used over the past 40 years and it plays an important role in developing the understanding of brain injury. Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have heightened the need for developing predictive models using machine learning (ML) methods especially for TBI patients who require life-saving interventions. ML is a subfield of AI which allows the computer algorithms to learn patterns by studying data directly without being explicitly programmed. This paper compares the different ways in which predictive models evaluate the potential of ML for TBI outcome prediction. A literature survey of latest articles from 2016 to 2018 reveals that the predictions of existing predictive models compute different prediction performances in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under receiving operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Depending on the specific prediction task evaluated and the type of input features included, Artificial Neural Network (ANN) creates a powerful model to predict outcomes of TBI with profound accuracy compared to other ML models. Although ANNs are considered as “black-box” in computational models, their benefits in clinical medicine have infinite potentials in evidence-based medicine practice because ANNs can be trained on new patient information. Moreover, the existing predictive models show that ML can be leveraged to more accurately predict the outcomes of TBI patients. Most importantly, predictive models can provide real-time clinical utilization that leads to greater accuracy and higher predictive value for patients suffered from traumatic brain injury.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Niblack Algorithm Modification Using Maximum-Minimum (Max-Min) Intensity Approaches on Low Contrast Document Images

Nächstes Kapitel Blood Vessel Detection Monitoring System and Mobile Notification for Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis

Knaus, W.A., Draper, E.A., Wagner, D.P., Zimmerman, J.E.: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit. Care Med. 13, 818–829 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009CrossRef

MRC CRASH Trial Collaborators: Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ 336(7641), 425–429 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39461.643438.25CrossRef

Rimel, R.W., Jane, J.A., Edlich, R.F.: An injury severity scale for comprehensive management of central nervous system trauma. J. Am. Coll. Emerg. Physicians 8, 64–67 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-1124(79)80039-8CrossRef

Mitra, J., Shen, K.K., Ghose, S., Bourgeat, P., Fripp, J., Salvado, O., Pannek, K., Taylor, D.J., Mathias, J.L., Rose, S.: Statistical machine learning to identify traumatic brain injury (TBI) from structural disconnections of white matter networks. NeuroImage 129, 247–259 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.056CrossRef

Alanazi, H.O., Abdullah, A.H., Al Juma, M.: A critical review for an accurate and dynamic prediction for the outcomes of traumatic brain injury based on Glasgow Outcome Scale. J. Med. Sci. 13(4), 244–252 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3923/jms.2013.244.252CrossRef

Alanazi, H.O., Abdullah, A.H., Qureshi, K.N., Larbani, M., Al Jumah, M.: Predicting the outcomes of traumatic brain injury using accurate and dynamic predictive model. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 93(2), 561–570 (2016)

Alanazi, H.O., Abdullah, A.H., Qureshi, K.N.: A critical review for developing accurate and dynamic predictive models using machine learning methods in medicine and health care. J. Med. Syst. 41(4), 69 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0715-6. (in Eng)CrossRef

Moppett, I.K.: Traumatic brain injury: assessment, resuscitation and early management. Br. J. Anaesth. 99(1), 18–31 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aem128CrossRef

You, X., Liew, B.S., Rosman, A.K., Musa, K.I., Idris, Z.: The estimated cost of surgically managed isolated traumatic head injury secondary to road traffic accidents. Neurosurg. Focus 44(5), E7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.1.FOCUS17796CrossRef

10.

Goffus, A.M., Anderson, G.D., Hoane, M.R.: Sustained delivery of nicotinamide limits cortical injury and improves functional recovery following traumatic brain injury. J. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 3(2), 145–152 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4161/oxim.3.2.11315CrossRef

11.

Emami, P., Czorlich, P., Fritzsche, F.S., Westphal, M., Rueger, J.M., Lefering, R., Hoffmann, M.: Impact of Glasgow Coma Scale score and pupil parameters on mortality rate and outcome in pediatric and adult severe traumatic brain injury: a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. J. Neurosurg. 126(3), 760–767 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.1.JNS152385CrossRef

12.

McMillan, T., Wilson, L., Ponsford, J., Levin, H., Teasdale, G., Bond, M.: The Glasgow Outcome Scale—40 years of application and refinement. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 12(8), 477 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2016.89CrossRef

13.

Jennett, B., Bond, M.: Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage: a practical scale. Lancet 305(7905), 480–484 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(75)92830-5CrossRef

14.

Hale, A.T., Stonko, D.P., Brown, A., Lim, J., Voce, D.J., Gannon, S.R., Le, T.M., Shannon, C.N.: Machine-learning analysis outperforms conventional statistical models and CT classification systems in predicting 6-month outcomes in pediatric patients sustaining traumatic brain injury. Neurosurg. Focus 45(November), 1–7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.8.FOCUS17773CrossRef

15.

Senders, J.T., Arnaout, O., Karhade, A.V., Dasenbrock, H.H., Gormley, W.B., Broekman, M.L., Smith, T.R.: Natural and artificial intelligence in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 83(2), 181–192 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx384CrossRef

16.

Senders, J.T., Staples, P.C., Karhade, A.V., Zaki, M.M., Gormley, W.B., Broekman, M.L.D., Smith, T.R., Arnaout, O.: Machine learning and neurosurgical outcome prediction: a systematic review. World Neurosurg. 109(Ml), 476.e471–486.e471 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.149CrossRef

17.

Senders, J.T., Zaki, M.M., Karhade, A.V., Chang, B., Gormley, W.B., Broekman, M.L., Smith, T.R., Arnaout, O.: An introduction and overview of machine learning in neurosurgical care. Acta Neurochir. 160(1), 29–38 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3385-8CrossRef

18.

Lu, H.-Y., Li, T.-C., Tu, Y.-K., Tsai, J.-C., Lai, H.-S., Kuo, L.-T.: Predicting long-term outcome after traumatic brain injury using repeated measurements of Glasgow Coma Scale and data mining methods. J. Med. Syst. 39(2), 14 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0187-xCrossRef

19.

Gholipour, C., Rahim, F., Fakhree, A., Ziapour, B.: Using an artificial neural networks (ANNs) model for prediction of intensive care unit (ICU) outcome and length of stay at hospital in traumatic patients. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 9(4), 19–23 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/9467.5828CrossRef

20.

Liu, N.T., Salinas, J.: Machine learning for predicting outcomes in trauma. Shock 48(5), 504–510 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000000898. (in Eng)CrossRef

21.

Kamal, H., Lopez, V., Sheth, S.A.: Machine learning in acute ischemic stroke neuroimaging. Front. Neurol. 9(7–12), 2018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00945CrossRef

22.

Kotsiantis, S.B., Zaharakis, I.D., Pintelas, P.E.: Machine learning: a review of classification and combining techniques. Artif. Intell. Rev. 26(3), 159–190 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-007-9052-3CrossRef

23.

Juhola, M., Laurikkala, J.: Missing values: how many can they be to preserve classification reliability? Artif. Intell. Rev. 40(3), 231–245 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9282-2CrossRef

24.

Saar-Tsechansky, M., Provost, F.: Handling missing values when applying classification models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 8, 1623–1657 (2007)MATH

25.

McGonigal, M.D., Cole, J., Schwab, C.W., Kauder, D.R., Rotondo, M.F., Angood, P.B.: A new approach to probability of survival scoring for trauma quality assurance. J. Trauma 34(6), 863–868 (1993)CrossRef

26.

Pourahmad, S., Hafizi-Rastani, I., Khalili, H., Paydar, S.: Identifying important attributes for prognostic prediction in traumatic brain injury patients. Methods Inf. Med. 55(05), 440–449 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3414/ME15-01-0080CrossRef

27.

Shafiei, E., Fakharian, E., Omidi, A., Akbari, H., Delpisheh, A., Nademi, A.: Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for prediction of psychological symptom six months after mild traumatic brain injury. Iran. J. Psychiatry Behav. Sci. 11(3), e5849 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17795/ijpbs-5849CrossRef

28.

Alanazi, H.O., Abdullah, A.H., Qureshi, K.N., Ismail, A.S.: Accurate and dynamic predictive model for better prediction in medicine and healthcare. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 128(2), 1–13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-017-1655-3CrossRef

29.

Hale, A.T., Stonko, D.P., Lim, J., Guillamondegui, O.D., Shannon, C.N., Patel, M.B.: Using an artificial neural network to predict traumatic brain injury. J. Neurosurg. Pediatr. 1, 1–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.8.PEDS18370CrossRef

30.

Rau, C.-S., Kuo, P.-J., Chien, P.-C., Huang, C.-Y., Hsieh, H.-Y., Hsieh, C.-H.: Mortality prediction in patients with isolated moderate and severe traumatic brain injury using machine learning models. PLoS ONE 13(11), 1–12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207192CrossRef

31.

Kabir, G., Ahsan Akhtar Hasin, M.: Comparative analysis of artificial neural networks and neuro-fuzzy models for multicriteria demand forecasting. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. Appl.: IJFSA 3, 1–24 (2013). https://doi.org/10.4018/ijfsa.2013010101CrossRef

32.

Agoston, D.V., Langford, D.: Big data in traumatic brain injury: promise and challenges. Concussion 2, 45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2217/cnc-2016-0013CrossRef

33.

Johannesen, J.K., Bi, J., Jiang, R., Kenney, J.G., Chen, C.-M.A.: Machine learning identification of EEG features predicting working memory performance in schizophrenia and healthy adults. Neuropsychiatr. Electrophysiol. 2(1), 3 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40810-016-0017-0CrossRef

Titel: Predicting Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury Using Machine Learning Models
verfasst von: Nor Safira Elaina Mohd Noor
Haidi Ibrahim
Verlag: Springer Singapore
Buch: Intelligent Manufacturing and Mechatronics
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9538-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-13-9539-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9539-0_2

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht