Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, ISSN 1918-3003 print, 1918-3011 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Med Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website https://jocmr.elmerjournals.com

Original Article

Volume 17, Number 7, July 2025, pages 398-407


Improving a Clinical Prediction Model for Computed Tomography Head Scan Use in Non-Traumatic Seizures: The SeizCT Optimized Model

Figures

↓  Figure 1. Study flow diagram. GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale.
Figure 1.
↓  Figure 2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC). CI: confidence interval.
Figure 2.
↓  Figure 3. Calibration plot for predicted and observed probabilities of the SeizCT optimized model.
Figure 3.
↓  Figure 4. Decision curve analysis.
Figure 4.
↓  Figure 5. Predicted probability of positive CT brain findings plotted against the linear predictor. CT: computed tomography.
Figure 5.

Tables

↓  Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With Positive and Negative Findings on Computed Tomography (CT) Brain Scans
 
Baseline characteristics Missing (n = 55), n (%) Positive CT (n = 118), n (%) Negative CT (n = 507), n (%) P value
SD: standard deviation; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale; IQR: interquartile range.
Female 0 (0) 40 (33.9) 117 (23.1) 0.018
Age (years), mean ± SD 0 (0) 60.4 ± 15.1 53.5 ± 16.9 < 0.001
SBP (mm Hg), mean ± SD 0 (0) 145.5 ± 33.07 139.4 ± 26.8 0.035
DBP (mm Hg), mean ± SD 0 (0) 85.7 ± 20.6 84.4 ± 17.8 0.481
GCS, median (IQR) 0 (0) 11 (7, 15) 15 (11, 15) < 0.001
  Eye, median (IQR) 0 (0) 4 (2, 4) 4 (4, 4) < 0.001
  Verbal, median (IQR) 0 (0) 2 (1, 5) 5 (2, 5) < 0.001
  Motor, median (IQR) 0 (0) 5 (4, 6) 6 (5, 6) < 0.001
Pupil (mm), median (IQR) 39 (6.2) 3 (2, 3) 3 (3, 3) 0.395
GCS change from baseline, median (IQR) 0 (0) -4 (-8, 0) 0 (-3, 0) < 0.001
Focal neurological deficit 0 (0) 65 (55.1) 88 (17.4) < 0.001
Previous CT
  No previous CT 0 (0) 68 (57.6) 243 (47.9) 0.019
  Normal finding 0 (0) 11 (9.3) 99 (19.5)
  Abnormal finding 0 (0) 39 (33.1) 165 (32.5)
Prior stroke more than 3 months 0 (0) 16 (13.6) 95 (18.7) 0.228
Current cancer 0 (0) 17 (14.4) 14 (2.8) < 0.001
Epilepsy 0 (0) 16(13.6) 135 (26.6) 0.003
End-stage renal disease 0 (0) 9 (7.6) 35 (6.9) 0.841
Chronic liver disease 0 (0) 3 (2.5) 13 (2.6) 1.000
Anticoagulant use 0 (0) 7 (5.9) 26 (5.1) 0.654
Hypertension 0 (0) 43 (36.4) 164 (32.4) 0.447
Diabetes mellitus 0 (0) 19 (16.1) 87 (17.2) 0.892
Smoking 7 (1.1) 21 (18.1) 76(15.1) 0.479
Alcohol consumption 6 (1.0) 39 (33.6) 198 (39.4) 0.290
Substance use 3 (0.5) 2 (1.7) 20 (4.0) 0.403
Alcohol withdrawal symptoms 0 (0) 2 (1.7) 92 (18.2) < 0.001

 

↓  Table 2. Predictors of Positive CT Head Scan Findings From Multivariable Logistic Regression
 
Predictors Positive findings on CT head scan
mOR 95% CI P value
CT: computed tomography; mOR: multivariable odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale.
GCS change from baseline (points) 1.14 1.07, 1.21 < 0.001
Focal neurological deficit 3.83 2.40, 6.11 < 0.001
Current cancer 4.11 1.79, 9.43 < 0.001
Alcohol withdrawal symptoms 0.12 0.03, 0.49 0.003
Epilepsy 0.36 0.19, 0.68 < 0.001
Prior stroke more than 3 months 0.49 0.26, 0.93 0.030

 

↓  Table 3. Internal Validation of the Predictive Model Using the Bootstrap Resampling Method
 
Parameters Apparent performance Bootstrap performance
AuROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; E:O ratio: expected-to-observed outcomes ratio; CITL: calibration-in-the-large.
AuROC 0.8221 (0.7813, 0.8629) 0.8160 (0.7700, 0.8550)
Slope 1.0000 (0.7930, 1.2070) 0.9570 (0.7440, 1.1960)
E:O ratio 1.0000 1.0160
CITL -0.0000 (-0.2260, 0.2260) -0.0020 (-0.2300, 0.2370)
Bootstrap shrinkage - 0.9570

 

↓  Table 4. Confusion Matrices and Diagnostic Performance of the SeizCT Optimized Model at Different Probability Thresholds
 
Cut point CT +ve (n = 118) CT -ve (n = 507) Total Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV
CT: computed tomography; CT +ve: positive finding on CT brain; CT -ve: negative finding on CT brain; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value.
Probability > 18.9% 94 (15.0%) 116 (18.6%) 210 79.7% 77.1% 44.8% 94.2%
Probability ≤ 18.9% 24 (3.8%) 391 (62.6%) 415
Probability > 22.57% 88 (14.1%) 90 (14.4%) 178 74.6% 82.2% 49.4% 93.3%
Probability ≤ 22.57% 30 (4.8%) 417 (66.7%) 447
Probability > 25% 84 (13.4%) 83 (13.3%) 167 71.2% 83.6% 50.3% 92.6%
Probability ≤ 25% 34 (5.4%) 424 (67.8%) 458