Surgical prioritization based on decision model outcomes is not sensitive to differences between the health-related quality of life values estimates of physicians and citizens

Purpose: Decision models can be used to support allocation of scarce surgical resources. These models incorporate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values that can be determined using physician panels. The predominant opinion is that one should use values obtained from citizens. We investigated whether physicians give different HRQoL values to citizens and evaluate whether such differences impact decision model outcomes. Methods: A two-round Delphi study was conducted. Citizens estimated HRQoL of pre- and post-operative health states for ten surgeries using a visual analogue scale. These values were compared using Bland–Altman analysis with HRQoL values previously obtained from physicians. Impact on decision model outcomes was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the rankings of surgeries established using the physicians’ and the citizens’ values.Results: A total of 71 citizens estimated HRQoL. Citizens’ values on the VAS scale were − 0.07 points (95% CI − 0.12 to − 0.01) lower than the physicians’ values. The correlation between the rankings of surgeries based on citizens’ and physicians’ values was 0.96 (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: Physicians put higher values on health states than citizens. However, these differences only result in switches between adjacent entries in the ranking. It would seem that HRQoL values obtained from physicians are adequate to inform decision models during crises.</p

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury.Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma ScaleResults: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study.Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.</p

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.Peer reviewe

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

ObjectiveWe aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury.Study Design and SettingWe performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified.ResultsIn the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study.ConclusionML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations.</p

Tracheal intubation in traumatic brain injury

Background: We aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity. Methods: Data from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests. Results: In the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower. Conclusion: The benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting. Clinical trial registration: NCT02210221

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent

Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedur

Frequency of fatigue and its changes in the first 6 months after traumatic brain injury: results from the CENTER-TBI study

Background: Fatigue is one of the most commonly reported subjective symptoms following traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aims were to assess frequency of fatigue over the first 6 months after TBI, and examine whether fatigue changes could be predicted by demographic characteristics, injury severity and comorbidities. Methods: Patients with acute TBI admitted to 65 trauma centers were enrolled in the study Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI). Subj

Modern Learning from Big Data in Critical Care: Primum Non Nocere

Large and complex data sets are increasingly available for research in critical care. To analyze these data, researchers use techniques commonly referred to as statistical learning or machine learning (ML). The latter is known for large successes in the field of diagnostics, for example, by identification of radiological anomalies. In other research areas, such as clustering and prediction studies, there is more discussion regarding the benefit and efficiency of ML techniques compared with statistical learning. In this viewpoint, we aim to explain commonly used statistical learning and ML techniques and provide guidance for responsible use in the case of clustering and prediction questions in critical care. Clustering studies have been increasingly popular in critical care research, aiming to inform how patients can be characterized, classified, or treated differently. An important challenge for clustering studies is to ensure and assess generalizability. This limits the application of findings in these studies toward individual patients. In the case of predictive questions, there is much discussion as to what algorithm should be used to most accurately predict outcome. Aspects that determine usefulness of ML, compared with statistical techniques, include the volume of the data, the dimensionality of the preferred model, and the extent of missing data. There are areas in which modern ML methods may be preferred. However, efforts should be made to implement statistical frameworks (e.g., for dealing with missing data or measurement error, both omnipresent in clinical data) in ML methods. To conclude, there are important opportunities but also pitfalls to consider when performing clustering or predictive studies with ML techniques. We advocate careful valuation of new data-driven findings. More interaction is needed between the engineer mindset of experts in ML methods, the insight in bias of epidemiologists, and the probabilistic thinking of statisticians to extract as much information and knowledge from data as possible, while avoiding harm