Cited by 62Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation

Multimodal assessment improves neuroprognosis performance in clinically unresponsive critical-care patients with brain injury

Open access
Rohaut, B., Calligaris, C., Hermann, B., Perez, P., Faugeras, F., Raimondo, F., King, J-.R., Engemann, D. +21 more·2024·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Accurately predicting functional outcomes for unresponsive patients with acute brain injury is a medical, scientific and ethical challenge. This prospective study assesses how a multimodal approach combining various numbers of behavioral, neuroimaging and electrophysiological markers affects the performance of outcome predictions. We analyzed data from 349 patients admitted to a tertiary neurointensive care unit between 2009 and 2021, categorizing prognoses as good, uncertain or poor, and compared these predictions with observed outcomes using the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended (GOS-E, levels ranging from 1 to 8, with higher levels indicating better outcomes). After excluding cases with life-sustaining therapy withdrawal to mitigate the self-fulfilling prophecy bias, our findings reveal that a good prognosis, compared with a poor or uncertain one, is associated with better one-year functional outcomes (common odds ratio (95% CI) for higher GOS-E: OR = 14.57 (5.70–40.32), P < 0.001; and 2.9 (1.56–5.45), P < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, increasing the number of assessment modalities decreased uncertainty (OR = 0.35 (0.21–0.59), P < 0.001) and improved prognostic accuracy (OR = 2.72 (1.18–6.47), P = 0.011). Our results underscore the value of multimodal assessment in refining neuroprognostic precision, thereby offering a robust foundation for clinical decision-making processes for acutely brain-injured patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04534777 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-024-03019-1

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine learning models that integrate task-relevant multimodal EHR yield superior performance compared to those relying on a single modality.

    “Machine learning models that integrate task-relevant multimodal EHR have been shown to yield superior performance compared to those relying on a single modality2–6.”

    From MoMA: a mixture-of-multimodal-agents architecture for enhancing clinical prediction modelling (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Results (‘Multimodal assessment improves neuroprognosis performance’) report that the multivariable classifier trained on multimodal markers performed similarly to individual prognostic markers, not better. The reported accuracy gain with more modalities concerns the specialist team’s prognosis, rather than superior performance by a machine-learning model. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rohaut, B., Calligaris, C., Hermann, B., Perez, P., Faugeras, F., Raimondo, F., King, J. R., Engemann, D., Marois, C., Le Guennec, L., Di Meglio, L., Sangaré, A., Munoz Musat, E., Valente, M., Ben Salah, A., Demertzi, A., Belloli, L., Manasova, D., Jodaitis, L., Habert, M. O., Lambrecq, V., Pyatigorskaya, N., Galanaud, D., Puybasset, L., Weiss, N., Demeret, S., Lejeune, F. X., Sitt, J. D., & Naccache, L.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • Sorbonne Université (FR)
Corresponding author
Rohaut, B.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2024-05-30
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
2349-2355
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W4399181829
Cited by
62
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 2
FWCI
18.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Conicet (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
James S. McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Keywords
neurological outcome prediction, acute brain injury, unresponsive patients, multimodal assessment, Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended, functional outcome prediction, prognostic accuracy, neuroimaging biomarkers, electrophysiological markers, behavioral assessment, neurocritical care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain Injuries, Critical Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Glasgow Outcome Scale, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review