{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Probability density and information entropy of machine learning derived intracranial pressure predictions.
{Author}: Abdul-Rahman A;Morgan W;Vukmirovic A;Yu DY;
{Journal}: PLoS One
{Volume}: 19
{Issue}: 7
{Year}: 2024
{Factor}: 3.752
{DOI}: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306028
{Abstract}: Even with the powerful statistical parameters derived from the Extreme Gradient Boost (XGB) algorithm, it would be advantageous to define the predicted accuracy to the level of a specific case, particularly when the model output is used to guide clinical decision-making. The probability density function (PDF) of the derived intracranial pressure predictions enables the computation of a definite integral around a point estimate, representing the event's probability within a range of values. Seven hold-out test cases used for the external validation of an XGB model underwent retinal vascular pulse and intracranial pressure measurement using modified photoplethysmography and lumbar puncture, respectively. The definite integral ±1 cm water from the median (DIICP) demonstrated a negative and highly significant correlation (-0.5213±0.17, p< 0.004) with the absolute difference between the measured and predicted median intracranial pressure (DiffICPmd). The concordance between the arterial and venous probability density functions was estimated using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, extending the distribution agreement across all data points. This parameter showed a statistically significant and positive correlation (0.4942±0.18, p< 0.001) with DiffICPmd. Two cautionary subset cases (Case 8 and Case 9), where disagreement was observed between measured and predicted intracranial pressure, were compared to the seven hold-out test cases. Arterial predictions from both cautionary subset cases converged on a uniform distribution in contrast to all other cases where distributions converged on either log-normal or closely related skewed distributions (gamma, logistic, beta). The mean±standard error of the arterial DIICP from cases 8 and 9 (3.83±0.56%) was lower compared to that of the hold-out test cases (14.14±1.07%) the between group difference was statistically significant (p<0.03). Although the sample size in this analysis was limited, these results support a dual and complementary analysis approach from independently derived retinal arterial and venous non-invasive intracranial pressure predictions. Results suggest that plotting the PDF and calculating the lower order moments, arterial DIICP, and the two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic may provide individualized predictive accuracy parameters.