4.7 Article

Predicting Outcome of Traumatic Brain Injury: Is Machine Learning the Best Way?

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10030686

关键词

traumatic brain injury; outcome predictors; linear regression; machine learning; ensemble of classifiers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares traditional regression modeling with machine learning algorithms for the prognosis of TBI patients. The results show similar accuracy between linear regression and machine learning algorithms, with the naive bayes algorithm performing the worst. The study highlights the utility of comparing these approaches when using a small number of reliable predictor variables after TBI.
One of the main challenges in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients is to achieve an early and definite prognosis. Despite the recent development of algorithms based on artificial intelligence for the identification of these prognostic factors relevant for clinical practice, the literature lacks a rigorous comparison among classical regression and machine learning (ML) models. This study aims at providing this comparison on a sample of TBI patients evaluated at baseline (TO), after 3 months from the event (T1), and at discharge (T2). A Classical Linear Regression Model (LM) was compared with independent performances of Support Vector Machine (SVM), k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), Naive Bayes (NB) and Decision Tree (DT) algorithms, together with an ensemble ML approach. The accuracy was similar among LM and ML algorithms on the analyzed sample when two classes of outcome (Positive vs. Negative) approach was used, whereas the NB algorithm showed the worst performance. This study highlights the utility of comparing traditional regression modeling to ML, particularly when using a small number of reliable predictor variables after TBI. The dataset of clinical data used to train ML algorithms will be publicly available to other researchers for future comparisons.

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

4.7
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