Prediction of intracranial findings on CT-scans by alternative modelling techniques

BackgroundPrediction rules for intracranial traumatic findings in patients with minor head injury are designed to reduce the use of computed tomography (CT) without missing patients at risk for complications. This study investigates whether alternative modelling techniques might improve the applicability and simplicity of such prediction rules.MethodsWe included 3181 patients with minor head injury who had received CT scans between February 2002 and August 2004. Of these patients 243 (7.6%) had intracranial traumatic findings and 17 (0.5%) underwent neurosurgical intervention. We analyzed sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC-value) to compare the performance of various modelling techniques by 10 × 10 cross-validation. The techniques included logistic regression, Bayes network, Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID), neural net, support vector machines, Classification And Regression Trees (CART) and "decision list" models.ResultsThe cross-validated performance was best for the logistic regression model (AUC 0.78), followed by the Bayes network model and the neural net model (both AUC 0.74). The other models performed poorly (AUC < 0.70). The advantage of the Bayes network model was that it provided a graphical representation of the relationships between the predictors and the outcome.ConclusionsNo alternative modelling technique outperformed the logistic regression model. However, the Bayes network model had a presentation format which provided more detailed insights into the structure of the prediction problem. The search for methods with good predictive performance and an attractive presentation format should continue.

[1]  George A Wells,et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury , 2001, The Lancet.

[2]  Maurizio Vichi,et al.  Data Analysis, Classification and the Forward Search: Proceedings of the Meeting of the Classification and Data Analysis Group (CLADAG) of the Italian ... Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization) , 2006 .

[3]  Frank E. Harrell,et al.  Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis , 2001 .

[4]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Classification and Regression Trees , 1984 .

[5]  Maurizio Vichi,et al.  Data Analysis, Classification and the Forward Search , 2006 .

[6]  Sergio Zani Data analysis, classification and the forward search : proceedings of the Meeting of the Classification and Data Analysis Group (CLADAG) of the Italian Statistical Society, University of Parma, June 6-8, 2005 , 2006 .

[7]  Brian H Rowe,et al.  Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. , 2005, JAMA.

[8]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  Classification and regression trees , 2011, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[9]  Marion Smits,et al.  Predicting Intracranial Traumatic Findings on Computed Tomography in Patients with Minor Head Injury: The CHIP Prediction Rule , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  Mohamed Alfateh Badawy,et al.  Identification of children at very low risk of clinically-important brain injuries after head trauma: a prospective cohort study , 2009, The Lancet.

[11]  C.J.H. Mann,et al.  Clinical Prediction Models: A Practical Approach to Development, Validation and Updating , 2009 .

[12]  E. Steyerberg Clinical Prediction Models , 2008, Statistics for Biology and Health.