• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

今日至明日的创伤性脑损伤后颅内压治疗强度变化的动态预测因素。

TILTomorrow today: dynamic factors predicting changes in intracranial pressure treatment intensity after traumatic brain injury.

作者信息

Bhattacharyay Shubhayu, van Leeuwen Florian D, Beqiri Erta, Åkerlund Cecilia A I, Wilson Lindsay, Steyerberg Ewout W, Nelson David W, Maas Andrew I R, Menon David K, Ercole Ari

机构信息

Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 2;15(1):95. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-83862-x.

DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-83862-x
PMID:39747195
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11696189/
Abstract

Practices for controlling intracranial pressure (ICP) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) vary considerably between centres. To help understand the rational basis for such variance in care, this study aims to identify the patient-level predictors of changes in ICP management. We extracted all heterogeneous data (2008 pre-ICU and ICU variables) collected from a prospective cohort (n = 844, 51 ICUs) of ICP-monitored TBI patients in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI study. We developed the TILTomorrow modelling strategy, which leverages recurrent neural networks to map a token-embedded time series representation of all variables (including missing values) to an ordinal, dynamic prediction of the following day's five-category therapy intensity level (TIL) score. With 20 repeats of fivefold cross-validation, we trained TILTomorrow on different variable sets and applied the TimeSHAP (temporal extension of SHapley Additive exPlanations) algorithm to estimate variable contributions towards predictions of next-day changes in TIL. Based on Somers' D, the full range of variables explained 68% (95% CI 65-72%) of the ordinal variation in next-day changes in TIL on day one and up to 51% (95% CI 45-56%) thereafter, when changes in TIL became less frequent. Up to 81% (95% CI 78-85%) of this explanation could be derived from non-treatment variables (i.e., markers of pathophysiology and injury severity), but the prior trajectory of ICU management significantly improved prediction of future de-escalations in ICP-targeted treatment. Whilst there was no significant difference in the predictive discriminability (i.e., area under receiver operating characteristic curve) between next-day escalations (0.80 [95% CI 0.77-0.84]) and de-escalations (0.79 [95% CI 0.76-0.82]) in TIL after day two, we found specific predictor effects to be more robust with de-escalations. The most important predictors of day-to-day changes in ICP management included preceding treatments, age, space-occupying lesions, ICP, metabolic derangements, and neurological function. Serial protein biomarkers were also important and may serve a useful role in the clinical armamentarium for assessing therapeutic needs. Approximately half of the ordinal variation in day-to-day changes in TIL after day two remained unexplained, underscoring the significant contribution of unmeasured factors or clinicians' personal preferences in ICP treatment. At the same time, specific dynamic markers of pathophysiology associated strongly with changes in treatment intensity and, upon mechanistic investigation, may improve the timing and personalised targeting of future care.

摘要

重症监护病房(ICU)收治的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者的颅内压(ICP)控制方法在不同中心之间差异很大。为了帮助理解这种护理差异的合理依据,本研究旨在确定ICP管理变化的患者层面预测因素。我们从一项前瞻性队列研究(n = 844,51个ICU)中收集的所有异质性数据(2008年ICU前和ICU变量)中提取了ICP监测的TBI患者的数据,该研究是欧洲创伤性脑损伤协作有效性研究。我们开发了TILTomorrow建模策略,该策略利用递归神经网络将所有变量(包括缺失值)的标记嵌入时间序列表示映射到对次日五类治疗强度水平(TIL)评分的有序动态预测。通过20次五折交叉验证,我们在不同的变量集上训练了TILTomorrow,并应用TimeSHAP(Shapley加性解释的时间扩展)算法来估计变量对次日TIL变化预测的贡献。基于Somers' D,全套变量在第一天解释了次日TIL变化中68%(95%CI 65 - 72%)的有序变化,此后随着TIL变化频率降低,解释率高达51%(95%CI 45 - 56%)。高达81%(95%CI 78 - 85%)的这种解释可以从非治疗变量(即病理生理学和损伤严重程度的标志物)中得出,但ICU管理的先前轨迹显著改善了对未来ICP靶向治疗降级的预测。虽然第二天后次日TIL升级(0.80 [95%CI 0.77 - 0.84])和降级(0.79 [95%CI 0.76 - 0.82])之间的预测辨别力(即受试者工作特征曲线下面积)没有显著差异,但我们发现特定的预测因素对降级的影响更稳健。ICP管理每日变化的最重要预测因素包括先前的治疗、年龄、占位性病变、ICP、代谢紊乱和神经功能。系列蛋白质生物标志物也很重要,可能在评估治疗需求的临床手段中发挥有用作用。第二天后TIL每日变化中约一半的有序变化仍无法解释,这突出了未测量因素或临床医生个人偏好在ICP治疗中的重大贡献。同时,与治疗强度变化密切相关的特定病理生理学动态标志物,经机制研究后,可能会改善未来护理的时机和个性化靶向治疗。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/55abac59031d/41598_2024_83862_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/476819315648/41598_2024_83862_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/3bb128987fe4/41598_2024_83862_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/c3baf891831f/41598_2024_83862_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/37dc6568f62f/41598_2024_83862_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/55abac59031d/41598_2024_83862_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/476819315648/41598_2024_83862_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/3bb128987fe4/41598_2024_83862_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/c3baf891831f/41598_2024_83862_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/37dc6568f62f/41598_2024_83862_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/db37/11696189/55abac59031d/41598_2024_83862_Fig5_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
TILTomorrow today: dynamic factors predicting changes in intracranial pressure treatment intensity after traumatic brain injury.今日至明日的创伤性脑损伤后颅内压治疗强度变化的动态预测因素。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 2;15(1):95. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-83862-x.
2
Therapy Intensity Level Scale for Traumatic Brain Injury: Clinimetric Assessment on Neuro-Monitored Patients Across 52 European Intensive Care Units.创伤性脑损伤治疗强度水平量表:52 个欧洲重症监护病房中神经监测患者的临床评估。
J Neurotrauma. 2024 Apr;41(7-8):887-909. doi: 10.1089/neu.2023.0377. Epub 2023 Nov 2.
3
Sedation Intensity in Patients with Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Intensive Care Unit: A TRACK-TBI Cohort Study.重症监护病房中中重度创伤性脑损伤患者的镇静强度:一项TRACK-TBI队列研究。
Neurocrit Care. 2025 Apr;42(2):551-561. doi: 10.1007/s12028-024-02054-7. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
4
Intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute brain injury in the intensive care unit (SYNAPSE-ICU): an international, prospective observational cohort study.重症监护病房中急性脑损伤患者的颅内压监测(SYNAPSE-ICU):一项国际、前瞻性观察性队列研究。
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jul;20(7):548-558. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00138-1.
5
Use and impact of high intensity treatments in patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe: a CENTER-TBI analysis.欧洲创伤性脑损伤患者高强度治疗的使用和影响:CENTER-TBI 分析。
Crit Care. 2021 Feb 23;25(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03370-y.
6
Treatments for intracranial hypertension in acute brain-injured patients: grading, timing, and association with outcome. Data from the SYNAPSE-ICU study.急性脑损伤患者颅内高压的治疗:分级、时机与结局的相关性。来自 SYNAPSE-ICU 研究的数据。
Intensive Care Med. 2023 Jan;49(1):50-61. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06937-1. Epub 2023 Jan 9.
7
Cerebrovascular reactivity is not associated with therapeutic intensity in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI analysis.脑血管反应性与成人创伤性脑损伤的治疗强度无关:CENTER-TBI 分析。
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019 Sep;161(9):1955-1964. doi: 10.1007/s00701-019-03980-8. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
8
Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for the Early Prediction of Doses of Harmful Intracranial Pressure in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.用于早期预测重度创伤性脑损伤患者有害颅内压剂量的机器学习模型的开发与外部验证
J Neurotrauma. 2023 Mar;40(5-6):514-522. doi: 10.1089/neu.2022.0251. Epub 2022 Sep 13.
9
Prediction of intracranial pressure crises after severe traumatic brain injury using machine learning algorithms.利用机器学习算法预测严重创伤性脑损伤后的颅内压危象。
J Neurosurg. 2023 Jan 27;139(2):528-535. doi: 10.3171/2022.12.JNS221860. Print 2023 Aug 1.
10
The leap to ordinal: Detailed functional prognosis after traumatic brain injury with a flexible modelling approach.从等级跳跃:使用灵活建模方法对创伤性脑损伤后的详细功能预后。
PLoS One. 2022 Jul 5;17(7):e0270973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270973. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Prediction of neurocritical care intensity through automated infrared pupillometry and transcranial doppler in blunt traumatic brain injury: the NOPE study.通过自动红外瞳孔测量和经颅多普勒超声在钝性颅脑损伤中预测神经重症监护强度:NOPE 研究。
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Aug;50(4):1209-1217. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02435-1. Epub 2024 Jan 16.
2
Prediction of therapeutic intensity level from automatic multiclass segmentation of traumatic brain injury lesions on CT-scans.从 CT 扫描上外伤性脑损伤病变的自动多分类分割预测治疗强度水平。
Sci Rep. 2023 Nov 17;13(1):20155. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46945-9.
3
Clinical descriptors of disease trajectories in patients with traumatic brain injury in the intensive care unit (CENTER-TBI): a multicentre observational cohort study.
重症监护病房创伤性脑损伤患者疾病轨迹的临床描述(CENTER-TBI):一项多中心观察性队列研究。
Lancet Neurol. 2024 Jan;23(1):71-80. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00358-7. Epub 2023 Nov 14.
4
Therapy Intensity Level Scale for Traumatic Brain Injury: Clinimetric Assessment on Neuro-Monitored Patients Across 52 European Intensive Care Units.创伤性脑损伤治疗强度水平量表:52 个欧洲重症监护病房中神经监测患者的临床评估。
J Neurotrauma. 2024 Apr;41(7-8):887-909. doi: 10.1089/neu.2023.0377. Epub 2023 Nov 2.
5
Mining the contribution of intensive care clinical course to outcome after traumatic brain injury.探究重症监护临床过程对创伤性脑损伤后预后的影响。
NPJ Digit Med. 2023 Aug 21;6(1):154. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00895-8.
6
Towards autoregulation-oriented management after traumatic brain injury: increasing the reliability and stability of the CPPopt algorithm.朝向创伤性脑损伤后自动调节导向管理:增加 CPPopt 算法的可靠性和稳定性。
J Clin Monit Comput. 2023 Aug;37(4):963-976. doi: 10.1007/s10877-023-01009-1. Epub 2023 Apr 29.
7
Accuracy of Manual Intracranial Pressure Recording Compared to a Computerized High-Resolution System: A CENTER-TBI Analysis.手动颅内压记录与计算机化高分辨率系统的准确性比较:CENTER-TBI 分析。
Neurocrit Care. 2023 Jun;38(3):781-790. doi: 10.1007/s12028-023-01697-2. Epub 2023 Mar 15.
8
Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research.创伤性脑损伤:预防、临床护理和研究方面的进展和挑战。
Lancet Neurol. 2022 Nov;21(11):1004-1060. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00309-X. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
9
Clustering identifies endotypes of traumatic brain injury in an intensive care cohort: a CENTER-TBI study.聚类分析确定了重症监护队列中创伤性脑损伤的表型:CENTER-TBI 研究。
Crit Care. 2022 Jul 27;26(1):228. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04079-w.
10
The leap to ordinal: Detailed functional prognosis after traumatic brain injury with a flexible modelling approach.从等级跳跃:使用灵活建模方法对创伤性脑损伤后的详细功能预后。
PLoS One. 2022 Jul 5;17(7):e0270973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270973. eCollection 2022.