Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and Validation of a Prognostic Score Based on Admission Characteristics

Open access
Hukkelhoven, Chantal W.P.M., Steyerberg, Ewout W., Habbema, J. Dik F., Farace, Elana, Marmarou, Anthony, Murray, Gordon D., Marshall, Lawrence F., Maas, Andrew I.R.·2005·Journal of Neurotrauma

Abstract

The early prediction of outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI) is important for several purposes, but no prognostic models have yet been developed with proven generalizability across different settings. The objective of this study was to develop and validate prognostic models that use information available at admission to estimate 6-month outcome after severe or moderate TBI. To this end, this study evaluated mortality and unfavorable outcome, that is, death, and vegetative or severe disability on the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), at 6 months post-injury. Prospectively collected data on 2269 patients from two multi-center clinical trials were used to develop prognostic models for each outcome with logistic regression analysis. We included seven predictive characteristics-age, motor score, pupillary reactivity, hypoxia, hypotension, computed tomography classification, and traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. The models were validated internally with bootstrapping techniques. External validity was determined in prospectively collected data from two relatively unselected surveys in Europe (n = 796) and in North America (n = 746). We evaluated the discriminative ability, that is, the ability to distinguish patients with different outcomes, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Further, we determined calibration, that is, agreement between predicted and observed outcome, with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The models discriminated well in the development population (AUC 0.78-0.80). External validity was even better (AUC 0.83-0.89). Calibration was less satisfactory, with poor external validity in the North American survey (p < 0.001). Especially, observed risks were higher than predicted for poor prognosis patients. A score chart was derived from the regression models to facilitate clinical application. Relatively simple prognostic models using baseline characteristics can accurately predict 6-month outcome in patients with severe or moderate TBI. The high discriminative ability indicates the potential of this model for classifying patients according to prognostic risk.

Overview

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 · 10.1089/neu.2005.22.1025

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Hukkelhoven, C. W. P. M., Steyerberg, E. W., Habbema, J. D. F., Farace, E., Marmarou, A., Murray, G. D., Marshall, L. F., & Maas, A. I. R.
Venue
Journal of Neurotrauma
Published
2005-10
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
1025-1039
ISSN
  • 0897-7151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9042
OpenAlex
W2009217495
Cited by
301
References
3
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and Validation of a Prognostic Score Based on Admission Characteristics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/neu.2005.22.1025
The paper
Hukkelhoven, C. W. P. M., Steyerberg, E. W., Habbema, J. D. F., Farace, E., Marmarou, A., Murray, G. D., Marshall, L. F., & Maas, A. I. R. (2005). Predicting Outcome after Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and Validation of a Prognostic Score Based on Admission Characteristics. Journal of Neurotrauma. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2005.22.1025

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.