ArticleScientific reports2025
Developing practical machine learning survival models to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality following traumatic brain injury.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Post-Liver Transplantation: A Scoping Review of Comparative Model Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Application of machine learning algorithms in osteoporosis analysis based on cardiovascular health assessed by life's essential 8: a cross-sectional study.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- Age and pupil size: key predictors of mortality in traumatic brain injury patients with GCS 3.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) offers precise predictions and could improve patient care, potentially replacing traditional scoring systems. A retrospective study at Emtiaz Hospital analyzed 3,180 traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. Nineteen variables were assessed using ML algorithms to predict outcomes. Data preparation addressed missing values and balancing methods corrected imbalances. Model building involved training-test splits, survival analysis, and ML algorithms like Random Survival Forest (RSF) and Gradient Boosting. Feature importance was examined, with patient risk stratification guiding survival analysis. The best-performing model, RSF with ROS resampling, achieved the highest mean AUC of 0.80, the lowest IBS of 0.11, and IPCW c-index of 0.79, maintaining strong predictive ability over time. Top predictors for in-hospital mortality included age, GCS, pupil condition, PTT, IPH, and Rotterdam score, with high variations in predictive abilities over time. A risk stratification cut-off value of 63.34 separated patients into low and high-risk categories, with Kaplan-Meier curves showing significant survival differences. Our high-performing predictive model, built on first-day features, enables time-dependent risk assessment for tailored interventions and monitoring. Our study highlights the feasibility of AI tools in clinical settings, offering superior predictive accuracy and enhancing patient care for TBI cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.