A Critical Review for an Accurate and Dynamic Prediction for the Outcomes of Traumatic Brain Injury based on Glasgow Outcome Scale
Hamdan O. Alanazi,
Abdul Hannan Abdullah
Mohammed Al Jumah
The world and every 5 min someone dies from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Furthermore, it is a leading cause of death and disability in the world. Identification of patients with poor neurologic prognosis causes problem for the patients and their families. Presently, computer technology is increasingly been used and implemented in healthcare and predicting patient outcome can be useful as an aid to clinical decision making, explore possible biological mechanisms and as part of the clinical audit process. Machine learning, a branch of artificial Intelligence aims to make computer automated predictions more accurate. Neurologists need an accurate model to predict the neurologic outcome in patients with brain injury and this remains a challenge for the intensivist. A critical review on existing predictive models of traumatic brain injury is conducted in Science Direct, PubMed, Elsevier and Springer Link some other publishers. A review of related literature reveals that there is no method classified yet as being the perfect machine learning method. The review further shows that no prognostic models in TBI have yet been developed with proven results. In addition, it shows that predicting the outcomes of traumatic brain injury based on Glasgow Outcome Scale using machine learning methods is essential and needs to be improved.
Received: January 01, 2013;
Accepted: February 19, 2013;
Published: May 21, 2013
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) had been considered as human suffering since ancient
times (Rajeswaran et al., 2012). Currently, traumas
are critical worldwide problems related to health and one person dies from traumatic
brain injury every 5 min (Fedorka and Sullivan, 2004).
Furthermore, TBI has been the primary cause of fatality and disability in the
world (Kim, 2011).
In Malaysia, TBI is a principal reason of death for people who are below 45
years old of age (Moppett, 2007). Automobile accidents
are still the root reason for traumatic brain injuries. Based on statistics,
the occurrence of road accidents is considered as one of the highest in the
world. The death rate is approximately 22 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (Liew
et al., 2009).
In the Middle-East countries, TBI is once again the chief source of death and
disability. Studies show that in Saudi Arabia 80% of fatalities in Ministry
of Health Hospitals are due to TBI and the majority of them consist of youths.
Overall in Saudi Arabia death occurring from TBI accounts for 17.4% and this
is double the figure in USA which is only 8.3% (Bangash
and Baeesa, 2010).
TBI is a severe health problem in USA and it takes place every 23 seconds (Goffus
et al., 2010). The injuries in USA include skull and facial fractures
and it occurs at an alarming rate of 180 to 250 per 100,000 people. Besides
the fatal TBI, more than 1.5 million Americans endure non-fatal TBIs every year
which do not necessitate hospitalization. Quite a large number (annual rate
of 618 per 100,000 persons) sustain injuries that end up in a loss of consciousness
but not serious enough to effect in long-term hospitalization. Intracranial
hypertension, which might be a result from traumatic brain injury, is considered
a most common cause of death in neurosurgery (Iencean, 2004).
A sad point to note is that though many individuals suffer from brain injuries
which do not require hospitalization but they end up with permanent disability
(Nuwer et al., 2005). Schneider
et al. (2002) assert that TBI result in more lasting deficiencies
and higher death compared with other trauma cases.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the science and engineering of making intelligent
machines. In other Words, Artificial intelligence is intelligent agents understands
its environment and takes appropriate actions to succeed (Abghari
et al., 2009; Curran et al., 2004;
Vinayagasundaram and Srivatsa, 2007; Hui
et al., 2011; Mpallas et al., 2011).
In this information age, computer technology and in particular Artificial Intelligence
(AI) plays an increasingly role in aiding healthcare and in predicting patient
outcome (Bentaouza and Benyettou, 2010). El-Gohary
et al. (2008) highlighted the importance of using artificial intelligence
for decision making in medicine. Therefore AI can be useful in clinical decision
making and in the process of clinical audit (Signorini
et al., 1999a). Processing on medical dataset for clinical decision
making is essential to help save time of both patients and doctors and to reduce
the risk of wrong diagnosis (Fidele et al., 2009).
Machine learning and its related algorithms is a major branch of artificial
intelligence (Michalski et al., 1998; Michie
et al., 1994; Mitchell, 1999; Shavlik
and Dietterich, 1990). Machine learning algorithms in the early stages have
been planned to scrutinize data pertaining to medicine. Presently, the concept
of making a machine learn supplies quite a number of valuable tools for intelligent
data analysis, data collection and data storage. Manual classification usually
causes a mistake and getting a classification using a computer with accurate
outcomes is a challenge for the computer scientist (Madhloom
et al., 2010). Classification and prediction in medical diagnosis
and prognosis are using increasingly (Blessia et al.,
2011). The accurate prediction of clinical outcomes and diagnosis are very
important for therapeutic decision making (Noorizad and
Mahdian, 2006; Agyei-Frempong et al., 2010).
Prediction plays a very essential role for evaluation of patients outcomes
(Dastorani et al., 2010). Basically in machine
learning, patient records together with their accurate diagnosis are input into
systems to generate an algorithm which could classify. Automated classification
may help clinicians to diagnose at an early stage more efficiently and accurately
(Britto and Ravindran, 2007). In this way, patient diagnosis
can be speeded up, be more accurate and reliable. Furthermore, the classifier
can be used to educate student physicians in arriving at an accurate diagnosis.
The advent of electronic computers in the sixties enabled modeling and analyzing
large sets of data. So far, learning using symbols as explained through Hunt
et al. (1966), methods using statistics as propounded through Nilsson
(1965) and studies done by Rosenblatt (1958) on neural
networks have so far materialized. These three branches created sophisticated
methods and Michie et al. (1994) explain that they
include pattern recognition techniques, using k-nearest neighbours, analysis
using discriminants and classifiers using Bayesian concepts. In addition, other
methods and techniques such as decision trees, rules, logic and artificial neural
networks were used.
In the area of artificial intelligence, an expert system can be defined as
a computer system that can make a decision similar to a human expert (Raju
and Rajagopalan, 2007). To reduce and minimize elements of subjectivity,
several computer expert systems were developed and integrated to help in the
design of predictive methods. As an example, Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were
created by making use of models derived from expert system (Bratko
et al., 1989).
Detecting patients with inaccurate neurologic prognosis causes difficulties
for the patients and their families (Beca et al.,
1995). According to neurologists, time is a crucial factor in diagnosis
and arriving at an appropriate decision that could aid the patients. Hence,
accurate and timely prediction of neurologic results in patients with brain
injury poses a challenge for the intensivist (Machado et
al., 1999). Singh et al. (2007) assert
that there is still no perfect machine learning model classified yet. Dynamically
predicting the outcomes of TBI is still at an infant stage. This research aims
to develop a predictive model using machine learning methods which when implemented
could dynamically predict outcomes of Traumatic Brain Injury by overcoming the
drawbacks and weaknesses of current machine learning models.
Traumatic brain injury: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), also known as intracranial injury, occurs when an external force traumatically injures the brain. TBI can be classified based on severity, mechanism (closed or penetrating head injury), or other features (e.g., occurring in a specific location or over a widespread area). The terms head injury, traumatic brain injury and acquired brain injury are often used interchangeably, but is refers to a broader category because it can involve damage to structures other than the brain, such as the scalp and skull.
TBI is a major cause of death and disability worldwide, especially in children
and young adults. Causes include falls, vehicle accidents and violence. Preventive
measures include the use of technology to reduce the impact resulting from vehicle
mishaps (Cooper, 2011).
The after effects of brain trauma known as secondary injuries take place after
the main impact had happened. These effects change pressure inside the skull
and cerebral blood flow and lead to more serious damages compared to the first
injury (Mogul-Rotman, 2011). As a result, a host of
other emotional and behavioral side effects occur. Modern technology and the
development of different therapies have helped in rehabilitation and in reducing
TBI related deaths (McDevitt et al., 2012). Another
adverse effect of TBI injury is that many victims exist in a vegetative state.
Vegetative state patients normally appear to be wakeful by having open eyes
but they do not reflect cognitive ability (Monti et al.,
Causes of TBI: TBIs occur due to a number of reasons and in the U.S.
they are primarily due to violence, road accidents and accidents at construction
sites and in the sports arena (Faul et al., 2010).
Road accidents involving motor cycles are a major cause and it is increasingly
becoming significant as other types of causes reduce (Reilly,
2007). It is estimated that in the U.S. alone approximately 3.8 million
TBIs occur due to sports activities (Sahler and Greenwald,
2012). Falls among children below the age of four and traffic accidents
involving children are other common causes (Granacher, 2008).
Hunt et al. (2003) show that injury resulting
from child abuse is serious and it accounts for one-third of total injuries.
Domestic brutality at home, work-related and industrial accidents are other
causes of TBI (Bay and McLean, 2007; Comper
et al., 2005). The use of weapons and bomb explosions are other primary
causes of TBI during armed conflict between countries (Park
et al., 2008).
Demographics of TBI: TBI occurs in more than 85% of traumatically injured
children (Carli and Orliaguet, 2004). The largest occurrences
of TBIs are found in persons whose ages are from 15 to 24 (Hardman
and Anthony, 2002). Among youths, TBI injuries are common and the cost and
loss of productivity is high too (Maas et al., 2008).
The children from five to nine years and elders over 80 years are the most risk
group (Rao and Lyketsos, 2000), and the highest rates
of death and hospitalization because of Traumatic brain injury are in elders
over 65 years (Brown et al., 2008). The incidence
of TBI in First World countries is increasing as the population ages and the
median age of people with head injuries has increased (Maas
et al., 2008).
On a gender basis, it appears that more males suffer from TBI injuries compared
to females (Hardman and Anthony, 2002 ; Rao
and Lyketsos, 2000). Males account for two-thirds of childhood and youths
head trauma (Necajauskaite et al., 2005). However,
severity of injury in women is less than men (Moppett,
There is a co-relationship between socioeconomic status and TBI rates and people
with lower qualifications and lower socioeconomic status tend to have more risk
(Hannay et al., 2004).
History of TBI: Research studies show that dead injuries dates back
to prehistory (High, 20 k to 05). Skulls found in battleground graves with holes
drilled over fracture lines and this trepanation might be used to treat TBI
in antiquity (Granacher, 2008). Ancient Mesopotamians
knew of head injury and some of its properties, such as seizures, paralysis
and loss of sight, hearing or speech (Scurlock and Andersen,
2005). The Edwin Smith Papyrus which was written in about 1650-1550 BC,
defines different head injuries and signs (Sanchez and
Burridge, 2007). Greek physicians including Hippocrates found that the brain
is a center of thinking, and this understanding might come from their experience
with head trauma (Levin et al., 1982).
From the 16th century onwards, doctors used the term concussion to explain
about brain injuries (Zillmer et al., 2006). In
the 18th century, doctors hypothesize that intracranial pressure is the cause
of pathology after TBI instead of skull damage. Thus, in the 19th century, surgeons
relieved pressure in the brains by opening the skull (Granacher,
Studies done by Corcoran et al. (2005) showed
that there was a correlation between TBI and the mental illness. In the 20th
and 21st century, technology played an important role by providing tools for
diagnosis. New tools such as imaging tools, CT, MRI and Diffusion Tensor Imaging
(DTI) provided better patient diagnosis and treatment. In the 1950s, the intracranial
pressure monitoring has been introduced and this can be called as the modern
era of head injury (Marshall, 2000). The mortality
rate of TBI was high and rehabilitation was uncommon.
Hundreds of people suffered from brain injuries as s result of using explosives
during World War I. More research studies were made and brain injuries were
categorized into primary and secondary brain injuries. After World War I, the
death rate reduced and made rehabilitation possible (High
et al., 2005). Actually, the explosives used in World War I caused
many blast injuries and a large number of TBIs that resulted allowed researchers
to learn a lot more about TBI (Jones et al., 2007;
High et al., 2005). In addition, a great deal
of progress has been made since then in brain trauma research such as the discovery
of primary and secondary brain injury (Marshall, 2000).
Glasgow outcome scale: Patients who had undergone TBI can be categorized
according to the degree of residual disability. The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)
rates patient status into five categories. They are namely Dead, Vegetative
State, Severe Disability, Moderate Disability and Good Recovery (Jennett
and Bond, 1975). Death is the long-lasting termination of all biological
functions that sustain a living organism. Vegetative State implies that the
patient is unresponsive but alive. Vegetative State (VS) patients are still
not recognized by law as death in any legal system. In the case of severely
disabled, the patients are conscious but the patient relies entirely on others
for daily support. Patients who are moderately disabled are independent but
are still disabled. In the case of Good Recovery patients, the patients have
started many of the normal activities but may still have some minor residual
problems. A more elaborate classification was done by the Extended GOS which
classifies TBI patients into 8 divisions namely Death, Vegetative state, Lower
severe disability, Upper severe disability, Lower moderate disability, Upper
moderate disability, Lower good recovery and Upper good recovery (Maas
et al., 2007).
A CRITICAL REVIEW ON PREDICTING OUTCOMES OF TBI
A critical review on existing predictive models of traumatic brain injury is conducted in Science Direct, PubMed, Elsevier and Springer Link some other publishers. The existing predictive models of traumatic brain injury are presented in Table 1. The accuracy of the predictive model and whether it can achieve the accurate and dynamic prediction are shown.
In nutshell, many research studies have been done on predictive models of traumatic
brain injury. Detecting patients with inaccurate neurologic prognosis causes
difficulties for the patients and their families (Beca
et al., 1995).
|| A critical review on predicative models of traumatic brain
According to neurologists, time is a crucial factor in diagnosis and arriving
at an appropriate decision that could aid the patients. Hence, accurate and
timely prediction of neurologic results in patients with brain injury poses
a challenge for the intensivist (Machado et al.,
1999). As it has been presented in (Table 1), there was
no study has yet to be made on dynamically predicting the outcomes of TBI. In
addition, different machine learning methods give different accuracy with the
same dataset. Existing models have conflicting issues and therefore it is pertinent
that a new model of dynamically predicting the outcomes of TBI need to be developed.
Predicting of TBI outcomes studies are significant as it can help doctors to
make an accurate clinical decision and explore possible biological mechanisms
as part of the clinical audit process. In addition, it can help to train students
or physicians who are non-specialists to diagnose patients. The review shows
that existing machine learning methods provide different accuracy using the
same dataset. A review of related literature reveals that no predictive models
in TBI have yet been developed with proven results. In addition, there was no
study has yet to be made on dynamically predicting the outcomes of TBI.
Abghari, H., M. Mahdavi, A. Fakherifard and A. Salajegheh, 2009.
Cluster analysis of rainfall-runoff training patterns to flow modeling using hybrid RBF networks. Asian J. Applied Sci., 2: 150-159.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Agyei-Frempong, M.T., S.A. Sakyi and R.E. Quansah, 2010.
Comparison of anti-CCP peptide with rheumatoid factor and its isotypes for early differential diagnosis and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis. J. Med. Sci., 10: 19-24.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Andrews, P.J., D.H. Sleeman, P.F.X. Statham, A. McQuatt and V. Corruble et al
Predicting recovery in patients suffering from traumatic brain injury by using admission variables and physiological data: A comparison between decision tree analysis and logistic regression. J. Neurosurg, 97: 326-336.Direct Link |
Bangash, M.H. and S.S. Baeesa, 2010.
Current management of traumatic intracranial hypertension: A systematic approach. J. Neurosurg., 14: 21-28.Direct Link |
Bay, E. and S.A. McLean, 2007.
Mild traumatic brain injury: An update for advanced practice nurses. J. Neurosci. Nurs., 39: 43-51.Direct Link |
Beca, J., P.N. Cox, M.J. Taylor, D. Bohn and W. Butt et al
Somatosensory evoked potentials for prediction of outcome in acute severe brain injury. J. Pediatr., 126: 44-49.PubMed | Direct Link |
Bentaouza, C.M. and M. Benyettou, 2010.
Support vector machines for brain tumours cells classification. J. Applied Sci., 10: 1755-1761.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Blessia, T.F., S. Singh, A. Kumar and J.J. Vennila, 2011.
Application of knowledge based system for diagnosis of osteoarthritis. J. Artif. Intell., 4: 269-278.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Bratko, I., I. Mozetic and N. Lavac, 1989.
KARDIO: A study in Deep and Qualitative Knowledge for Expert Systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Britto, A.P. and D.G. Ravindran, 2007.
A review of cytogenetics and its automation. J. Medical Sci., 7: 1-18.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Brown, A.W., E.P. Elovic, S. Kothari, S.R. Flanagan and C. Kwasnica, 2008.
Congenital and acquired brain injury. Epidemiology, pathophysiology, prognostication, innovative treatments, and prevention. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 89: 3-9.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Carli, P., and G. Orliaguet, 2004.
Severe traumatic brain injury in children. The Lancet, 363: 584-585.
Choi, S.C., J.P. Muizelaar, T.Y. Barnes, A. Marmarou and D.M. Brooks et al
Prediction tree for severely head-injured patients. J. Neurosurg, 75: 251-251.Direct Link |
Combes, P., B. Fauvage, M. Colonna, J.G. Passagia and J.P. Chirossel, 1996.
Severe head injuries: an outcome prediction and survival analysis. Intens. Care. Med., 22: 1391-1395.PubMed | Direct Link |
Comper, P., S. Bisschop, N. Carnide and A. Tricco, 2005.
A systematic review of treatments for mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19: 863-880.PubMed | Direct Link |
Corcoran, C., T.W. McAllister and D. Malaspina, 2005.
Psychotic disorders. Textbook of traumatic brain injury. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC., pp: 213-229
Curran, K., C. Murphy and S. Annesley, 2004.
Web intelligence in information retrieval. Inform. Technol. J., 3: 196-201.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Dastorani, M.T., H. Afkhami, H. Sharifidarani and M. Dastorani, 2010.
Application of ANN and ANFIS models on dryland precipitation prediction (case study: Yazd in Central Iran). J. Applied Sci., 10: 2387-2394.CrossRef | Direct Link |
El-Gohary, M.I., A.S.A. Mohamed, M.M. Dahab, M.A. Ibrahim, A.A. El-Saeid and H.A. Ayoub, 2008.
Diagnosis of epilepsy by artificial neural network. J. Biol. Sci., 8: 451-455.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Faul, M., L. Xu, M.M. Wald and V.G. Coronado, 2010.
Traumatic brain injury in the United States: Emergency department visits, hospitalizations and deaths 2002-2006. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA., USA.
Fedorka, P., and Sullivan, J., 2004.
Case report: Persistent vegetative state in pregnancy. Adv. Emerg. Nurs. J., 2: 49-51.Direct Link |
Fidele, B., J. Cheeneebash, A. Gopaul and S.S.D. Goorah, 2009.
Artificial neural network as a clinical decision-supporting tool to predict cardiovascular disease. Trends Applied Sci. Res., 4: 36-46.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Goffus, A.M., G.D. Anderson and M.R. Hoane, 2010.
Sustained delivery of nicotinamide limits cortical injury and improves functional recovery following traumatic brain injury. Oxidat. Med. Cellul. Long., 3: 145-152.Direct Link |
Granacher, R.P., 2008.
Traumatic Brain Injury: Methods for Clinical and Forensic Neuropsychiatric Assessment. CRC PressI Llc
Guler, I., Z. Gokcil and E. Gulbandilar, 2009.
Evaluating of traumatic brain injuries using artificial neural networks. Expert. Sys. Appl., 36: 10424-10427.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Hannay, H.J., D.B. Howieson, D.W. Loring, J.S. Fischer and M.D. Lezak, 2004.
Neuropathology for neuropsychologists. Neuropsychol. Assessment, 4: 157-194.
Hardman, J.M. and M. Anthony, 2002.
Pathology of head trauma. Neuroimag. Clin. North. Am., 12: 175-187.PubMed | Direct Link |
High, W.M., A.M. Sander, M.A. Struchen and K.A. Hart, 2005.
Rehabilitation for Traumatic Brain Injury. Oxford University Press
Hukkelhoven, C.W., E.W. Steyerberg, J.D. Habbema, E. Farace and A. Marmarou et al
Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: Development and validation of a prognostic score based on admission characteristics. J. Neurotraum., 22: 1025-1039.Direct Link |
Hunt, E., J. Martin and P. Stone, 1966.
Experiments in Induction. Academic Press, New York
Iencean, S.M., 2004.
Vascular intracranial hypertension. J. Medical Sci., 4: 276-281.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Jennett, B. and M. Bond, 1975.
Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage: A practical scale. The Lancet, 305: 480-484.PubMed | Direct Link |
Jones, E., N.T. Fear and S. Wessely, 2007.
Shell shock and mild traumatic brain injury: A historical review. Am. J. Psychiat., 164: 1641-1645.CrossRef | PubMed |
Kim, Y.J., 2011.
A systematic review of factors contributing to outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury. J. Clin. Nurs., 20: 1518-1532.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Hui, L.Q., L.W. Hui, N. Aziz and Z. Ahmad, 2011.
Nonlinear process modeling of shell heavy oil fractionator using neural network. J. Appl. Sci., 11: 2114-2124.CrossRef |
Levin, H.S., A.L. Benton and R.G. Grossman, 1982.
Historical Review of Head Injury. Neurobehavioral Consequences of Closed Head Injury. Oxford University Press, UK., pp: 3-5
Li, Y.C., L. Liu, W.T. Chiu and W.I. Jian, 2000.
Neural network modeling for surgical decisions on traumatic brain injury patients. Int. J. Med. Inform., 57: 1-9.PubMed | Direct Link |
Liew, B., S.A. Johari, A.W. Nasser and J. Abdullah, 2009.
Severe traumatic brain injury: Outcome in patients with diffuse axonal injury managed conservatively in Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Johor Bahru-an observational study. Med. J. Malaysia, 64: 280-288.Direct Link |
Maas, A.I., A. Marmarou, G.D. Murray, S.G. Teasdale and E.W. Steyerberg, 2007.
Prognosis and clinical trial design in traumatic brain injury: The IMPACT study. J. Neurotrauma, 24: 232-238.PubMed | Direct Link |
Maas, I.R., S. Nino and B. Ross, 2008.
Moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in adults. Lancet Neurol., 7: 728-741.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Machado, S.G., G.D. Murray and G.M. Teasdale, 1999.
Evaluation of designs for clinical trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury. J. Neurotrauma, 16: 1131-1138.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Madhloom, H.T., S.A. Kareem, H. Ariffin, A.A. Zaidan, H.O. Alanazi and B.B. Zaidan, 2010.
An automated white blood cell nucleus localization and segmentation using image arithmetic and automatic threshold. J. Applied Sci., 10: 959-966.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Marshall, L.F., 2000.
Head injury: Recent past, present and future. Neurosurgery, 47: 546-561.Direct Link |
Michalski, R.S., I. Bratko and A. Bratko, 1998.
Machine Learning and Data Mining: Methods and Applications. Wiley, West Sussex, ISBN: 9780471971993, Pages: 456
Michie, D., D.J. Spiegelhalter and C.C. Taylor, 1994.
Machine Learning, Neural and Statistical Classification. Overseas Press, New Delhi
Mitchell, T.M., 1999.
The role of unlabeled data in supervised learning. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Cognitive Science, May 1999, Spain, pp: 2-11Direct Link |
Monti, M.M., S. Laureys and A.M. Owen, 2010.
The vegetative state. BMJ, Vol. 341CrossRef |
Moppett, I.K., 2007.
Traumatic brain injury: Assessment, resuscitation and early management. Br. J. Anaesthesia, 99: 18-31.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Mpallas, L., C. Tzimopoulos and C. Evangelides, 2011.
Comparison between neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system in modeling lake kerkini water level fluctuation lake management using artificial intelligence. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 4: 366-376.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Necajauskaite, O., M. Endziniene and K. Jureniene, 2005.
The prevalence, course and clinical features of post-concussion syndrome in children. Medicina (Kaunas), 41: 457-464.Direct Link |
Nilsson, N.J., 1965.
Learning Machines: Foundations of Trainable Pattern-Classifying Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York, Pages: 137
Noorizad, S. and M. Mahdian, 2006.
Mallampati and thyromental tests to predict difficult intubation. J. Medical Sci., 6: 169-172.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Nuwer, M.R., D.A. Hovda, L.M. Schrader and P.M. Vespa, 2005.
Routine and quantitative EEG in mild traumatic brain injury. Clin. Neurophysiol., 116: 2001-2025.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Pang, B.C., V. Kuralmani, R. Joshi, Y. Hongli, K.K. Lee, B.T. Ang and I. Ng, 2007.
Hybrid outcome prediction model for severe traumatic brain injury. J. Neurotrauma, 24: 136-146.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Park, E., J.D. Bell and A.J. Baker, 2008.
Traumatic brain injury: Can the consequences be stopped? Can. Med. Assoc. J., 178: 1163-1170.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Pignolo, L. and V. Lagani, 2011.
Prediction of outcome in the vegetative state by machine learning algorithms: A model for clinicians? J. Software Eng. Appl., 4: 388-390.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Rajeswaran, J., C. Bennett, S. Thomas and K. Rajakumari, 2012.
EEG neurofeedback training in clinical conditions. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation: Principles and Applications, pp: 57.
Raju, B.V. and S.P. Rajagopalan, 2007.
Personal construct psychology (PCP) expert systems. Inform. Technol. J., 6: 232-236.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Rao, V. and C. Lyketsos, 2000.
Neuropsychiatric sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Psychosomatics, 41: 95-103.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Reilly, P., 2007.
The impact of neurotrauma on society: An international perspective. Prog. Brain Res., 161: 3-9.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Rosenblatt, F., 1958.
The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psych. Rev., 65: 386-408.CrossRef | PubMed | Direct Link |
Rughani, A.I., T.M. Dumont, Z. Lu, J. Bongard, M.A. Horgan, P.L. Penar and B.I. Tranmer, 2010.
Use of an artificial neural network to predict head injury outcome. J. Neurosurg, 113: 585-590.Direct Link |
Sahler, C.S. and B.D. Greenwald, 2012.
Traumatic brain injury in sports: A review. Rehabil. Res. Practice,CrossRef |
Sakellaropoulos, G.C. and G.C. Nikiforidis, 1999.
Development of a Bayesian network for the prognosis of head injuries using graphical model selection techniques. Methods Inform. Med., 38: 37-42.
Sanchez, G.M. and A.L. Burridge, 2007.
Decision making in head injury management in the Edwin smith papyrus. Neurosurgical Focus, 23: E5-E5.PubMed | Direct Link |
Schneider, G., P. Fries, D. Wagner-Jochem, D. Thome, H. Laurer, B. Kramann, A. Mautes and T. Hagen, 2002.
Pathophysiological changes after traumatic brain injury: Comparison of two experimental animal models by means of MRI. Magnetic Reson. Mater. Phys. Biol. Med., 14: 233-241.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Schreiber, M.A., N. Aoki, B.G. Scott and J.R. Beck, 2002.
Determinants of mortality in patients with severe blunt head injury. Arch. Surg-Chicago, 137: 285-290.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Scurlock, J.A. and B.R. Andersen, 2005.
Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine: Ancient Sources, Translations and Modern Medical Analyses. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, ISBN: 9780252092381, Pages: 912
Shavlik, J.W. and T.G. Dietterich, 1990.
Readings in Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo
Signorini, D.F., P.J.D. Andrews, P.A. Jones, J.M. Wardlaw and J.D. Miller, 1999.
Predicting survival using simple clinical variables: A case study in traumatic brain injury. J. Neurol. Neurosurgery Psychiatry, 66: 20-25.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Signorini, D.F., P.J. Andrews, P.A. Jones, J.M. Wardlaw and J.D. Miller, 1999.
Adding insult to injury: The prognostic value of early secondary insults for survival after traumatic brain injury. J. Neurol. Neurosurg Psychiatry, 66: 26-31.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Singh, Y., P.K. Bhatia and O. Sangwan, 2007.
A review of studies on machine learning techniques. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Security, 1: 70-84.Direct Link |
Vinayagasundaram, B. and S.K. Srivatsa, 2007.
Software quality in artificial intelligence system. Inform. Technol. J., 6: 835-842.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Zillmer, E.A., J. Schneider, J. Tinker and C.I. Kaminaris, 2006.
A History of Sports-Related Concussions: A Neuropsychological Perspective. In: Sports Neuropsychology: Assessment and Management of Traumatic Brain Injury, Echemendia, R.J. (Ed.). Guilford Press, New York, pp: 21-23
Hunt, J.P., S.L. Weintraub, Y.Z. Wang and K.J. Buechter, 2003.
Kinematics of Trauma. In: Trauma 5th Edition, Moore, E.E., D.V. Feliciano and K.L. Mattox (Eds.). McGraw-Hill, New York, pp: 141-158
McDevitt, J., N. Christodoulides and P.N. Floriano, 2012.
Brain injury biomarker panel: US20120322682 A1. http://www.google.com/patents/US20120322682.
Ji, S.Y., R. Smith, T. Huynh and K. Najarian, 2009.
A comparative analysis of multi-level computer-assisted decision making systems for traumatic injuries. BMC Med. Informat. Decision Making, Vol. 9.CrossRef | Direct Link |
Mogul-Rotman, B., 2011.
Diagnosis...more than just words. Proceedings of the 27th International Seating Symposium-Revolution/Evolution, Gaylord Opryland Hotel, Nashville, TN., March 3-5, 2011, The University of Pittsburgh, pp: 163-165Direct Link |