Back

Classification of Recurrence Status After Surgical Treatment of Chronic Subdural Hemorrhage - A Machine Learning Approach

Hamou, H.; Kernbach, J.; Ridwan, H.; Fay-Rodrian, K.; Clusmann, H.; Hoellig, A.; Veldeman, M.

2026-03-27 neurology
10.64898/2026.03.25.26349323 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) recurrence requiring reoperation occurs in 5-33% of cases, representing a substantial clinical and economic burden. The ability to predict recurrence could enable risk-stratified surveillance protocols, potentially reducing imaging burden in low-risk patients while maintaining close monitoring for high-risk individuals. We evaluated whether machine learning algorithms could achieve clinically actionable recurrence prediction using routinely available clinical and radiographic variables. Methods This retrospective single-center study included 564 consecutive patients who underwent surgical evacuation of cSDH between 2015 and 2023. Data were randomly divided into training (75%, n=422) and test (25%, n=142) sets. We developed and compared three machine learning models--regularized logistic regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost--using 31 predictor variables including demographics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory values, hematoma characteristics, and postoperative features. Model development and hyperparameter tuning were performed exclusively on the training set using 10-fold cross-validation. The best-performing model was selected and evaluated on the held-out test set. The primary outcome was postoperative recurrence requiring reoperation. Results Postoperative recurrence occurred in 170 patients (30.1%). Within the training set, XGBoost achieved the highest cross-validated ROC AUC of 0.713 (SE=0.024), outperforming regularized logistic regression (0.686) and matching Random Forest (0.713). Variable importance analysis identified hematoma volume, coagulation parameters (INR, platelets, aPTT), and disease severity markers (ICU admission, GCS) as the most influential predictors, though absolute effect sizes remained modest. On the held-out test set, the final XGBoost model achieved ROC AUC 0.688 (95% CI: 0.590-0.772) with excellent calibration. However, at the clinically relevant 90% sensitivity threshold, test set specificity was only 30.3%, allowing potential imaging reduction in approximately one-third of non-recurrence patients. The consistency between training and test performance confirmed that limitations stem from inherent predictor information content rather than overfitting. Conclusions Machine learning models using routinely available clinical and radiographic variables cannot achieve clinically actionable risk stratification for cSDH recurrence. Despite rigorous methodology and internal validation, discriminative capacity remained insufficient to identify a low-risk patient subgroup suitable for de-escalated surveillance. These findings suggest that recurrence is driven by factors not captured in standard clinical assessment, and support either uniform surveillance protocols or symptom-driven imaging strategies rather than risk-stratified approaches.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neurotrauma
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
2
Neurocritical Care
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
5
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.7%
6
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
7
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
8
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
9
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
10
Journal of Neurology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
11
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
12
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
13
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
19
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
20
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 46%
1.4%
22
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
23
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
24
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
25
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
26
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
27
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
28
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
29
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%