A machine learning based approach for identifying traumatic brain injury patients for whom a head CT scan can be avoided

Head CT scan is more often used to evaluate patients with suspected traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the use of head CT scans in evaluating TBI is costly with low value endeavor. In this paper, we propose a new algorithm and a set of features to help clinicians determine which patients evaluated for TBI need a head CT scan using cost sensitive random forest (CSRF) classifier. We show that random forest (RF) and CSRF are useful methods for identifying patients likely to have a positive head CT scan. The proposed algorithm has superior diagnostic accuracy in comparison to the Canadian head CT algorithm, which is currently the most accurate and widely used algorithm for determining which TBI patients need a head CT scan. In the highest sensitivity (i.e. 100%), our method outperforms the Canadian rule in terms of specificity, accuracy and area under ROC curve using cost sensitive classifier. Clinical implementation of this algorithm can help decrease financial costs associated with Emergency Department evaluations for traumatic brain injury, while decreasing patient exposure to avoidable ionizing radiation.

[1]  Brian W. Barrett,et al.  Temporal optimisation of image acquisition for land cover classification with Random Forest and MODIS time-series , 2015, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[2]  Kenichi Tatsumi,et al.  Crop classification of upland fields using Random forest of time-series Landsat 7 ETM+ data , 2015, Comput. Electron. Agric..

[3]  Mel Herbert,et al.  Developing a clinical decision instrument to rule out intracranial injuries in patients with minor head trauma: methodology of the NEXUS II investigation. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[4]  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.

[5]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  T. Mills,et al.  Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  David M. Warshauer,et al.  Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000–2005 , 2006, Emergency Radiology.

[8]  David W Wright,et al.  Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. , 2009, Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association.

[9]  Nan Liu,et al.  A prospective surveillance of paediatric head injuries in Singapore: a dual-centre study , 2016, BMJ Open.

[10]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[11]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Bagging Predictors , 1996, Machine Learning.

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

[13]  G. Teasdale,et al.  Defining acute mild head injury in adults: a proposal based on prognostic factors, diagnosis, and management. , 2001, Journal of neurotrauma.

[14]  Henry A Glick,et al.  A critical comparison of clinical decision instruments for computed tomographic scanning in mild closed traumatic brain injury in adolescents and adults. , 2009, Annals of emergency medicine.

[15]  Frederick P Rivara,et al.  Use of Clinical Prediction Rules for Guiding Use of Computed Tomography in Adults With Head Trauma. , 2015, JAMA.

[16]  T Ingebrigtsen,et al.  Scandinavian guidelines for initial management of minimal, mild, and moderate head injuries. The Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee. , 2000, The Journal of trauma.

[17]  Nicolas Morizet,et al.  Classification of acoustic emission signals using wavelets and Random Forests : Application to localized corrosion , 2016 .

[18]  Banshidhar Majhi,et al.  Brain MR image classification using two-dimensional discrete wavelet transform and AdaBoost with random forests , 2016, Neurocomputing.