No abstract

The majority of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are categorized as mild, according to a baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13-15. Prognostic models that were developed to predict functional outcome and persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS) after mild TBI have rarely been externally validated. We aimed to externally validate models predicting 3-12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) or PPCS in adults with mild TBI. We analyzed data from the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project, which included 2862 adults with mild TBI, with 6-month GOSE available for 2374 and Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) results available for 1605 participants. Model performance was evaluated based on calibration (graphically and characterized by slope and intercept) and discrimination (C-index). We validated five published models for 6-month GOSE and three for 6-month PPCS scores. The models used different cutoffs for outcome and some included symptoms measured 2 weeks post-injury. Discriminative ability varied substantially (C-index between 0.58 and 0.79). The models developed in the Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury (CRASH) trial for prediction of GOSE <5 discriminated best (C-index 0.78 and 0.79), but were poorly calibrated. The best performing models for PPCS included 2-week symptoms (C-index 0.75 and 0.76). In conclusion, none of the prognostic models for early prediction of GOSE and PPCS has both good calibration and discrimination in persons with mild TBI. In future studies, prognostic models should be tailored to the population with mild TBI, predicting relevant end-points based on readily available predictors.

Prognostic prediction of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in patients is crucial in clinical decision and health care policy making. This study aimed to develop and validate prediction models for in-hospital mortality after severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI). We developed and validated logistic regression (LR), LASSO regression, and machine learning (ML) algorithms including support vector machines (SVM) and XGBoost models. Fiftyfour candidate predictors were included. Model performance was expressed in terms of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (intercept and slope). For model development, 2804 patients with sTBI in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) China Registry study were included. External validation was performed in 1113 patients with sTBI in the CENTER-TBI European Registry study. XGBoost achieved high discrimination in mortality prediction, and it outperformed logistic and LASSO regression. The XGBoost model established in this study also outperformed prediction models currently available, including the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (IMPACT) core and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials (CRASH) basic models. When including 54 variables, XGBoost and SVM reached C-statistics of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-0.92) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90) at internal validation, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.87-0.88) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85-0.87) at external validation, respectively. A simplified version of XGBoost and SVM using 26 variables selected by recursive feature elimination (RFE) reached C-statistics of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91) at internal validation, and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.87-0.88) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.86-0.87) at external validation, respectively. However, when the number of variables included decreased, the difference between ML and LR diminished. All the prediction models can be accessed via a web-based calculator. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, age, pupillary light reflex, Injury Severity Score (ISS) for brain region, and the presence of acute

No abstract

Prognostic assessment in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is embedded deeply in clinical care. Considering the limitations of current prognostic indicators, there is increasing interest in understanding the role of new biomarkers, and in finding other prognostic indicators of long-term outcomes following TBI. New prognostic indicators may result in the development of more accurate prediction models that could be useful for both risk stratification and clinical decision making. We aimed to review methodological issues and provide tentative guidelines for prognostic research in TBI. Prognostic factor research focuses on the role of a specific patient or disease-related characteristic in relation to outcome. Typically, univariable relations of the prognostic factor are studied, followed by analyses adjusting for other variables related to the outcome. Following existing guidelines, we emphasize the importance of transparent reporting of patient and specimen characteristics, study design, clinical end-points, and statistical analysis. Prognostic model research considers combinations of predictors, with challenges for model specification, estimation, evaluation, validation, and presentation. We highlight modern approaches and opportunities related to missing values, exploration of non-linear effects, and assessing between-study heterogeneity. Prognostic research in TBI can be improved if key methodological principles are adhered to and when research is performed in collaboration among multiple centers to ensure generalizability.