Use of an artificial neural network to predict head injury outcome

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

The authors describe the artificial neural network (ANN) as an innovative and powerful modeling tool that can be increasingly applied to develop predictive models in neurosurgery. They aimed to demonstrate the utility of an ANN in predicting survival following traumatic brain injury and compare its predictive ability with that of regression models and clinicians.

Methods

The authors designed an ANN to predict in-hospital survival following traumatic brain injury. The model was generated with 11 clinical inputs and a single output. Using a subset of the National Trauma Database, the authors “trained” the model to predict outcome by providing the model with patients for whom 11 clinical inputs were paired with known outcomes, which allowed the ANN to “learn” the relevant relationships that predict outcome. The model was tested against actual outcomes in a novel subset of 100 patients derived from the same database. For comparison with traditional forms of modeling, 2 regression models were developed using the same training set and were evaluated on the same testing set. Lastly, the authors used the same 100-patient testing set to evaluate 5 neurosurgery residents and 4 neurosurgery staff physicians on their ability to predict survival on the basis of the same 11 data points that were provided to the ANN. The ANN was compared with the clinicians and the regression models in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and discrimination.

Results

Compared with regression models, the ANN was more accurate (p < 0.001), more sensitive (p < 0.001), as specific (p = 0.260), and more discriminating (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the neurosurgery residents and staff physicians, and all clinicians were pooled to compare with the 5 best neural networks. The ANNs were more accurate (p < 0.0001), more sensitive (p < 0.0001), as specific (p = 0.743), and more discriminating (p < 0.0001) than the clinicians.

Conclusions

When given the same limited clinical information, the ANN significantly outperformed regression models and clinicians on multiple performance measures. While this paradigm certainly does not adequately reflect a real clinical scenario, this form of modeling could ultimately serve as a useful clinical decision support tool. As the model evolves to include more complex clinical variables, the performance gap over clinicians and logistic regression models will persist or, ideally, further increase.

Abbreviations used in this paper: ANN = artificial neural network; AUROC = area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; ED = emergency department; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; GOS = Glasgow Outcome Scale; ICP = intracranial pressure; NTDB = National Trauma Data Bank; TBI = traumatic brain injury.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Anand I. Rughani, M.D., 111 Colchester Avenue, Fletcher 5, Burlington, Vermont 05401. email: anand.rughani@vtmednet.org.Please include this information when citing this paper: published online December 18, 2009; DOI: 10.3171/2009.11.JNS09857.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Baxt WG: Application of artificial neural networks to clinical medicine. Lancet 346:113511381995

  • 2

    Bongard JLipson H: Nonlinear system identification using coevolution of models and tests. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9:3613842005

  • 3

    Chesnut RMMarshall SBPiek JBlunt BAKlauber MRMarshall LF: Early and late systemic hypotension as a frequent and fundamental source of cerebral ischemia following severe brain injury in the Traumatic Coma Data Bank. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 59:1211251993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cross SSHarrison RFKennedy RL: Introduction to neural networks. Lancet 346:107510791995

  • 5

    Eftekhar BMohammad KArdebili HEGhodsi MKetabchi 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 5:32005. (Abstract)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Farace EAlves WM: Do women fare worse: a metaanalysis of gender differences in traumatic brain injury outcome. J Neurosurg 93:5395452000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Genkin ALewis DMadigan D: Large-scale Bayesian logistic regression for text categorization. Technometrics 49:291 3042007

  • 8

    Hagen MD: Test Characteristics. How good is that test?. Prim Care 22:2132331995

  • 9

    Hanley JAMcNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29361982

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Hsu MHLi YCChiu WTYen JC: Outcome prediction after moderate and severe head injury using an artificial neural network. Stud Health Technol Inform 116:2412452005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hukkelhoven CWSteyerberg EWRampen AJFarace EHabbema JDMarshall LF: Patient age and outcome following severe traumatic brain injury: an analysis of 5600 patients. J Neurosurg 99:6666732003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Landwehr NHall MFrank E: Logistic Model Trees. Machine Learning 59:1612052005

  • 13

    Lang EWPitts LHDamron SLRutledge R: Outcome after severe head injury: an analysis of prediction based upon comparison of neural network versus logistic regression analysis. Neurol Res 19:2742801997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Lu ZRughani AITranmer BIBongard J: Informative sampling for large unbalanced data sets. Proceedings of the 2008 GECCO conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation New YorkACM Press2008. 20472054

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Machado SGMurray GDTeasdale GM: Evaluation of designs for clinical trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury. J Neurotrauma 16:113111381999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Pang BCKuralmani VJoshi RHongli YLee KKAng BT: Hybrid outcome prediction model for severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 24:1361462007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Perel PWasserberg JRavi RRShakur HEdwards PRoberts I: Prognosis following head injury: a survey of doctors from developing and developed countries. J Eval Clin Pract 13:4644652007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Segal MEGoodman PHGoldstein RHauck WWhyte JGraham JW: The accuracy of artificial neural networks in predicting long-term outcome after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 21:2983142006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Seung HSOpper MSompolinsky H: Query by Committee. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Computational Learning Theory New YorkACM Press1992. 287294

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Cited By
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 482 439 13
Full Text Views 236 107 3
PDF Downloads 172 67 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar