Predictive modeling in pediatric traumatic brain injury using machine learning

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Marcus Eng Hock Ong³  Sylvaine Barbier²  Nan Liu²  Shu-Ling Chong¹ 

[1] Department of Emergency Medicine, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, Singapore;Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore;Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

关键词: Machine learning;    Prediction rules;    Child;    Brain injuries;   

Others  :  1143521
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0015-0

 received in 2015-02-01, accepted in 2015-03-05,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes a significant burden and diagnostic challenge in the emergency department (ED). While large North American research networks have derived clinical prediction rules for the head injured child, these may not be generalizable to practices in countries with traditionally low rates of computed tomography (CT). We aim to study predictors for moderate to severe TBI in our ED population aged < 16 years.

Methods

This was a retrospective case–control study based on data from a prospective surveillance head injury database. Cases were included if patients presented from 2006 to 2014, with moderate to severe TBI. Controls were age-matched head injured children from the registry, obtained in a 4 control: 1 case ratio. These children remained well on diagnosis and follow up. Demographics, history, and physical examination findings were analyzed and patients followed up for the clinical course and outcome measures of death and neurosurgical intervention. To predict moderate to severe TBI, we built a machine learning (ML) model and a multivariable logistic regression model and compared their performances by means of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Results

There were 39 cases and 156 age-matched controls. The following 4 predictors remained statistically significant after multivariable analysis: Involvement in road traffic accident, a history of loss of consciousness, vomiting and signs of base of skull fracture. The logistic regression model was created with these 4 variables while the ML model was built with 3 extra variables, namely the presence of seizure, confusion and clinical signs of skull fracture. At the optimal cutoff scores, the ML method improved upon the logistic regression method with respect to the area under the ROC curve (0.98 vs 0.93), sensitivity (94.9% vs 82.1%), specificity (97.4% vs 92.3%), PPV (90.2% vs 72.7%), and NPV (98.7% vs 95.4%).

Conclusions

In this study, we demonstrated the feasibility of using machine learning as a tool to predict moderate to severe TBI. If validated on a large scale, the ML method has the potential not only to guide discretionary use of CT, but also a more careful selection of head injured children who warrant closer monitoring in the hospital.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Chong et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 4.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Atabaki SM: Pediatric head injury. Pediatr Rev 2007, 28(6):215-24.
• [2]Marin JR, Weaver MD, Yealy DM, Mannix RC: Trends in visits for traumatic brain injury to emergency departments in the United States. JAMA 2014, 311(18):1917-9.
• [3]Pal’a A, Kapapa M, Posovszky C, Roderer G, Konig R, Woischneck D, et al. Head injury in children: has a change in circumstances caused an increase in treatment numbers? J Child Neurol. 2014;1–6.
• [4]Thurman DJ. The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury in children and youths: a review of research since 1990. J Child Neurol. 2014;1–8.
• [5]Griffin ES, Lippmann SJ, Travers DA, Woodard EK: A matched-cohort study of pediatric head injuries: collecting data to inform an evidence-based triage assessment. J Emerg Nurs 2014, 40(1):98-104.
• [6]Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, et al.: Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 2013, 346:f2360.
• [7]Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al.: Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012, 380(9840):499-505.
• [8]Dunning J, Daly JP, Lomas JP, Lecky F, Batchelor J, Mackway-Jones K: Derivation of the children’s head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children. Arch Dis Child 2006, 91(11):885-91.
• [9]Kuppermann N, Holmes JF, Dayan PS, Hoyle JD Jr, Atabaki SM, Holubkov R, et al.: Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-important brain injuries after head trauma: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2009, 374(9696):1160-70.
• [10]Osmond MH, Klassen TP, Wells GA, Correll R, Jarvis A, Joubert G, et al.: CATCH: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury. CMAJ 2010, 182(4):341-8.
• [11]Mihindu E, Bhullar I, Tepas J, Kerwin A: Computed tomography of the head in children with mild traumatic brain injury. Am Surg 2014, 80(9):841-3.
• [12]Lyttle MD, Cheek JA, Blackburn C, Oakley E, Ward B, Fry A, et al.: Applicability of the CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN paediatric head injury clinical decision rules: pilot data from a single Australian centre. Emerg Med J 2013, 30(10):790-4.
• [13]Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz G: An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol Methods 2009, 14(4):323-48.
• [14]Rose S: Mortality risk score prediction in an elderly population using machine learning. Am J Epidemiol 2013, 177(5):443-52.
• [15]Pearce CB, Gunn SR, Ahmed A, Johnson CD: Machine learning can improve prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis using admission values of APACHE II score and C-reactive protein. Pancreatology 2006, 6(1–2):123-31.
• [16]de Toledo P, Rios PM, Ledezma A, Sanchis A, Alen JF, Lagares A: Predicting the outcome of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage using machine learning techniques. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2009, 13(5):794-801.
• [17]Peng SY, Chuang YC, Kang TW, Tseng KH: Random forest can predict 30-day mortality of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with remarkable discrimination. Eur J Neurol 2010, 17(7):945-50.
• [18]Thompson WD: Statistical analysis of case–control studies. Epidemiol Rev 1994, 16(1):33-50.
• [19]Rose S, van der Laan MJ. Simple optimal weighting of cases and controls in case–control studies. Int J Biostat. 2008;4(1):Article 19.
• [20]Liu N, Koh ZX, Chua ECP, Tan LML, Lin Z, Mirza B, et al.: Risk scoring for prediction of acute cardiac complications from imbalanced clinical data. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2014, 18(6):1894-902.
• [21]He H, Garcia EA: Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2009, 21(9):1263-84.
• [22]Liu N, Wang H: Ensemble based extreme learning machine. IEEE Signal Process Lett 2010, 17(8):754-7.
• [23]Jain AK, Duin RPW, Mao JC: Statistical pattern recognition: a review. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2000, 22(1):4-37.
• [24]Rojas R: Neural networks: a systematic introduction: Springer-Verlag. 1996.
• [25]Huang G-B, Zhu Q-Y, Siew C-K: Extreme learning machine: theory and applications. Neurocomputing 2006, 70(1–3):489-501.
• [26]Dayan PS, Holmes JF, Schutzman S, Schunk J, Lichenstein R, Foerster LA, et al.: Risk of traumatic brain injuries in children younger than 24 months with isolated scalp hematomas. Ann Emerg Med 2014, 64(2):153-62.
• [27]Ong MEH, Ng CHL, Goh K, Liu N, Koh ZX, Shahidah N, et al.: Prediction of cardiac arrest in critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department using a machine learning score incorporating heart rate variability compared with the modified early warning score. Crit Care 2012, 16(3):R108. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Eftekhar B, Mohammad K, Ardebili HE, Ghodsi M, Ketabchi E: Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for prediction of mortality in head trauma based on initial clinical data. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2005, 5:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Jaimes F, Farbiarz J, Alvarez D, Martínez C: Comparison between logistic regression and neural networks to predict death in patients with suspected sepsis in the emergency room. Crit Care 2005, 9(2):R150-6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Rughani AI, Dumont TM, Lu Z, Bongard J, Horgan MA, Penar PL, et al.: Use of an artificial neural network to predict head injury outcome. J Neurosurg 2010, 113(3):585-90.
• [31]DiRusso SM, Sullivan T, Holly C, Cuff SN, Savino J: An artificial neural network as a model for prediction of survival in trauma patients: validation for a regional trauma area. J Trauma 2000, 49(2):212-20. discussion 220–3
• [32]Ottenbacher KJ, Linn RT, Smith PM, Illig SB, Mancuso M, Granger CV: Comparison of logistic regression and neural network analysis applied to predicting living setting after hip fracture. Ann Epidemiol 2004, 14(8):551-9.
• [33]Tu JV: Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49(11):1225-31.
• [34]Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al.: The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138(1):W1-12.