↓ Skip to main content

Predicting delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage using physiological time series data

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Predicting delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage using physiological time series data
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10877-018-0132-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soojin Park, Murad Megjhani, Hans-Peter Frey, Edouard Grave, Chris Wiggins, Kalijah L. Terilli, David J. Roh, Angela Velazquez, Sachin Agarwal, E. Sander Connolly, J. Michael Schmidt, Jan Claassen, Noemie Elhadad

Abstract

To develop and validate a prediction model for delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) using a temporal unsupervised feature engineering approach, demonstrating improved precision over standard features. 488 consecutive SAH admissions from 2006 to 2014 to a tertiary care hospital were included. Models were trained on 80%, while 20% were set aside for validation testing. Baseline information and standard grading scales were evaluated: age, sex, Hunt Hess grade, modified Fisher Scale (mFS), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). An unsupervised approach applying random kernels was used to extract features from physiological time series (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation). Classifiers (Partial Least Squares, linear and kernel Support Vector Machines) were trained on feature subsets of the derivation dataset. Models were applied to the validation dataset. The performances of the best classifiers on the validation dataset are reported by feature subset. Standard grading scale (mFS): AUC 0.58. Combined demographics and grading scales: AUC 0.60. Random kernel derived physiologic features: AUC 0.74. Combined baseline and physiologic features with redundant feature reduction: AUC 0.77. Current DCI prediction tools rely on admission imaging and are advantageously simple to employ. However, using an agnostic and computationally inexpensive learning approach for high-frequency physiologic time series data, we demonstrated that our models achieve higher classification accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 34%
Engineering 8 8%
Computer Science 7 7%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 35 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#12,754,000
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#321
of 700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,409
of 332,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.