Back

An unsupervised machine learning approach to predict recovery from traumatic spinal cord injury

Brueningk, S. C.; Bourguignon, L.; Lukas, L.; EMSCI Study Group, ; Maier, D.; Abel, R.; Weidner, N.; Rupp, R.; Geisler, F.; Kramer, J. L. K.; Guest, J.; Curt, A.; Jutzeler, C. R.

2023-09-26 neurology
10.1101/2023.09.26.23295361 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNeurological and functional recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is highly heterogeneous, challenging outcome predictions in rehabilitation and clinical trials. We propose k-nearest neighbour (k-NN) matching as a data-driven, interpretable solution. MethodsThis study used acute-phase International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI exams to forecast 6-month recovery motor function as primary evaluation endpoint. Secondary endpoints included severity grade improvement, independent walking, and self-care ability. Different similarity metrics were explored for NN matching within 1267 patients from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury before validation in 411 patients from the Sygen trial. ResultsWe obtained a population-wide root-mean-squared error (RMSE) in motor score sequence of 0.76(0.14, 2.77) and competitive functional score predictions (AUCwalker=0.92, AUCself-carer=0.83). The validation cohort showed comparable results (RMSE = 0.75(0.13, 2.57), AUCwalker=0.92). Prediction performance in AIS grade B and C patients ([~]30%) showed the largest deviations from true recovery scores, in line with large SCI heterogeneity. ConclusionsOur approach provides detailed predictions of neurological and functional recovery based on a highly interpretable unsupervised machine learning concept. The k-NN matching strategy further enables the integration of historical control data into the evaluation of clinical trials and provides a data-driven digital twin for recovery trajectory exploration.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.