4.4 Article

Chronic subdural hematoma outcome prediction using logistic regression and an artificial neural network

期刊

NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 479-484

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-009-0215-3

关键词

Chronic subdural hematoma; Neural network; Regression; Outcome prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Artificial neural networks (ANN) have not been used in chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) outcome prediction following surgery. We used two methods, namely logistic regression and ANN, to predict using eight variables CSDH outcome as assessed by the Glasgow outcome score (GOS) at discharge. We had 300 patients (213 men and 87 women) and potential predictors were age, sex, midline shift, intracranial air, hematoma density, hematoma thickness, brain atrophy, and Glasgow coma score (GCS). The dataset was randomly divided to three subsets: (1) training set (150 cases), (2) validation set (75 cases), and (3) test set (75 cases). The training and validation sets were combined for regression analysis. Patients aged 56.5 +/- 18.1 years and 228 (76.0%) of them had a favorable outcome. The prevalence of brain atrophy, intracranial air, midline shift, low GCS, thick hematoma, and hyperdense hematoma was 142 (47.3%), 156 (52.0%), 177 (59.0%), 82 (27.3%), 135 (45.0%), and 52 (17.3%), respectively. The regression model did not show an acceptable performance on the test set (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.594; 95% CI, 0.435-0.754; p = 0.250). It had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 46%, and correctly classified 50.7% of cases. A four-layer 8-3-4-1 feedforward backpropagation ANN was then developed and trained. The ANN showed a remarkably superior performance compared to the regression model (AUC = 0.767; 95% CI, 0.652-0.882; p = 0.001). It had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 68%, and correctly classified 218 (72.7%) cases. Considering that GOS strongly correlates with the risk of recurrence, the ANN model can also be used to predict the recurrence of CSDH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据