Evaluation of Machine Learning Techniques to Predict the Likelihood of Mental Health Conditions Following a First mTBI

Abstract

ObjectiveLimited research has evaluated the utility of machine learning models and longitudinal data from electronic health records (EHR) to forecast mental health outcomes following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective of this study is to assess various data science and machine learning techniques and determine their efficacy in forecasting mental health (MH) conditions among active duty Service Members (SMs) following a first diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).Materials and MethodsPatient demographics and encounter metadata of 35,451 active duty SMs who have sustained an initial mTBI, as documented within the EHR, were obtained. All encounter records from a year prior and post index mTBI date were collected. Patient demographics, ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 codes, enhanced diagnostic related groups, and other risk factors estimated from the year prior to index mTBI were utilized to develop a feature vector representative of each patient. To embed temporal information into the feature vector, various window configurations were devised. Finally, the presence or absence of mental health conditions post mTBI index date were used as the outcomes variable for the models.ResultsWhen evaluating the machine learning models, neural network techniques showed the best overall performance in identifying patients with new or persistent mental health conditions post mTBI. Various window configurations were tested and results show that dividing the observation window into three distinct date windows [−365:−30, −30:0, 0:14] provided the best performance. Overall, the models described in this paper identified the likelihood of developing MH conditions at [14:90] days post-mTBI with an accuracy of 88.2%, an AUC of 0.82, and AUC-PR of 0.66.DiscussionThrough the development and evaluation of different machine learning models we have validated the feasibility of designing algorithms to forecast the likelihood of developing mental health conditions after the first mTBI. Patient attributes including demographics, symptomatology, and other known risk factors proved to be effective features to employ when training ML models for mTBI patients. When patient attributes and features are estimated at different time window, the overall performance increase illustrating the importance of embedding temporal information into the models. The addition of temporal information not only improved model performance, but also increased interpretability and clinical utility.ConclusionPredictive analytics can be a valuable tool for understanding the effects of mTBI, particularly when identifying those individuals at risk of negative outcomes. The translation of these models from retrospective study into real-world validation models is imperative in the mitigation of negative outcomes with appropriate and timely interventions.

Machine learning and network analysis for diagnosis and prediction in disorders of consciousness

“…Also, the data used in most previous studies varied greatly and involved demographic, clinical, radiographic and laboratory sources (e.g. [ 36 , 37 ]). One of the problems in using a wide variety of data is that prior feature selection becomes important to prevent ML models from becoming saturated with too much irrelevant and redundant data and possibly not converging to an optimal or even sub-optimal point.…”

Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation Outcome Prediction Using Machine Learning Methods

“…Compared with LM, advanced ML methods allow greater flexibility for modeling non-linear recovery pattern, interactions between treatments, diminishing returns, ceiling/floor effect, which better reflects real-world settings. 6 A few studies have applied ML methods to rehabilitation data and predict outcomes in different patient populations affected by mild TBI, 7 , 8 stroke, 9 , 10 and predict FIM scores at discharge, 11 survival or mortality probability after TBI, 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 suicidal ideation after TBI. 19 In contrast, Bruschetta et al 20 did not find ML methods to have superiority over LM in predicting outcome after TBI and was limited by quantity of predictor variables.…”