journal article·2025-04-21Open access

Machine Learning Introduces Electrophysiology Assessment as the Best Predictor for the Recovery Prognosis of Spinal Cord Injury Patients for Personalized Rehabilitation Approaches

Dionysia Chrysanthakopoulou, Charalampos Matzaroglou, Eftychia Trachani, Constantinos Koutsojannis

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 8

Abstract

The strong correlation between evoked potentials (EPs) and American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scores in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) suggests that EPs may serve as reliable predictive markers for rehabilitation progress. Numerous studies have confirmed a relationship between variations in somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and ASIA scores, especially in the early stages of SCI. Machine learning’s (ML’s) increasing importance in medicine is driven by the growing availability of health data and improved algorithms. It enables the creation of predictive models for disease diagnosis, progression prediction, personalized treatment, and improved healthcare efficiency. Data-driven approaches can significantly improve patient care, reduce costs, and facilitate personalized medicine. The meticulous analysis of medical data is crucial for timely disease identification, leading to effective symptom management and appropriate treatment. This study applies artificial intelligence to identify predictors of SCI progression, as measured by the disability index, ASIA impairment scale (AIS), and final motor recovery. We aim to clarify the prognostic role of electrophysiological testing (SSEPs, MEPs, and nerve conduction studies (NCSs)) in SCI. We analyzed data from a medical database of 123 records. We developed an ML-based intelligent system, utilizing ensemble algorithms combining decision trees and neural network approaches, to predict SCI recovery. Our evaluation showed SEP accuracies of 90% for motor recovery prediction and 80% for AIS scale determination, comparable to full electrophysiology evaluation accuracies of 93% and 89%, respectively, and generally superior results compared to MEP and NCS results. EPs emerged as the best predictors, comparable to a comprehensive electrophysiology assessment, significantly improving accuracy compared to clinical findings alone. An electrophysiological assessment, when available, increased overall accuracy for final motor recovery prediction to 93% (from a maximum of 75%) and, for ASIA score determination, to 89% (from a maximum of 66%). Further validation is needed with a larger dataset. Future research should validate that sensory electrophysiology assessment is a less expensive, portable, and simpler alternative to other prognostic tests and more effective than clinical assessments, like the AIS, biomarker for SCI, and personalized rehabilitation planning.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Spinal Cord Injury Research · Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery · Muscle activation and electromyography studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Health Physics & Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Physiotherapy Department, School of Health Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece

Funding

Andreas Mentzelopoulos Foundation

References (40)

Show source-provided references
1. Acute Spinal Cord Injury10.1097/BSD.0000000000000287 ↗
2. The international standards booklet for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury10.1038/sc.1994.13 ↗
3. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury revised 201910.46292/sci2702-1 ↗
4. Anjum, A., Yazid, M.D., Daud, M.F., Idris, J., Ng, A.M.H., Naicker, A.S., Ismail, O.H.R., Kumar, R.K.A., and Lokanathan, Y. (2020). Spinal cord injury: Pathophysiology, multimolecular interactions, and underlying recovery mechanisms. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 21.10.3390/ijms21207533 ↗
5. MRI in traumatic spinal cord injury: From clinical assessment to neuroimaging biomarkers10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30138-3 ↗
6. Advances in Imaging of Vertebral and Spinal Cord Injury10.1080/10790268.2010.11689685 ↗
7. Pinchi, E., Frati, A., Cantatore, S., D’errico, S., La Russa, R., Maiese, A., Palmieri, M., Pesce, A., Viola, R.V., and Frati, P. (2019). Acute spinal cord injury: A systematic review investigating miRNA families involved. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 20.10.3390/ijms20081841 ↗
8. Rehabilitation of spinal cord injuries10.5312/wjo.v6.i1.8 ↗
9. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (Revised 2011)10.1179/204577211X13207446293695 ↗
10. Updates for the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury10.1016/j.pmr.2014.04.001 ↗
11. Gait analysis of spinal cord injured subjects: Effects of injury level and spasticity10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90000-3 ↗
12. Spastisitet etter ryggmargsskade10.4045/tidsskr.10.0872 ↗
13. Waters, R.L., Adkins, R.H., and Yakura, J.S. (2000). International Standards for Neurological Classifications of Spinal Cord Injury, American Spinal Injury Association.
14. Prediction of ambulatory performance based on motor scores derived from standards of the American Spinal Injury Association10.1016/0003-9993(94)90131-7 ↗
15. A tool for clinical reasoning and reflection using the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) framework and patient management model10.2522/ptj.20090226 ↗
16. Towards the development of clinical measures for spinal cord injury based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health with rasch analyses10.1016/j.apmr.2014.05.006 ↗
17. Mapping two measures to the International classification of functioning, disability and health and the brief ICF core set for spinal cord injury in the post-acute context10.3109/09638288.2015.1107762 ↗
18. Acute traumatic spinal cord injury10.1016/j.ncl.2021.02.004 ↗
19. Immune response following traumatic spinal cord injury: Pathophysiology and therapies10.3389/fimmu.2022.1084101 ↗
20. Global, regional, and national burden of spinal cord injury, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 201910.1016/S1474-4422(23)00287-9 ↗
21. Spinal cord injury: Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions
22. Cadotte, D.W., and Fehlings, M.G. (2014). Traumatic spinal cord injury: Acute spinal cord injury and prognosis. Quantitative MRI of the Spinal Cord, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-396973-6.00003-4 ↗
23. Application of electrophysiological measures in spinal cord injury clinical trials: A narrative review10.1038/s41393-019-0331-z ↗
24. Current and emerging treatment options for spinal cord ischemia10.1016/j.drudis.2016.06.015 ↗
25. Electrophysiological outcome measures in spinal cord injury clinical trials: A systematic review10.1310/sci2504-340 ↗
26. Clinical neurophysiology in the prognosis and monitoring of traumatic spinal cord injury10.1016/B978-0-444-52137-8.00004-8 ↗
27. Neuropathology: The foundation for new treatments in spinal cord injury10.1038/sj.sc.3101670 ↗
28. Somatosensory evoked potentials in clinical practice: A review10.1590/0004-282x-anp-2020-0427 ↗
29. Utility of somatosensory and motor-evoked potentials in reflecting gross and fine motor functions after unilateral cervical spinal cord contusion injury10.4103/1673-5374.301486 ↗
30. Electrophysiological study in acute spinal cord injury patients: Its correlation to neurological deficit and subsequent recovery assessment by ASIA score10.1007/s43465-020-00108-4 ↗
31. Application of artificial intelligence to rock mechanics: An overview10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.05.010 ↗
32. A multilayer perceptron-based medical decision support system for heart disease diagnosis10.1016/j.eswa.2005.07.022 ↗
33. Segmental motor recovery after cervical spinal cord injury relates to density and integrity of corticospinal tract projections10.1038/s41467-023-36390-7 ↗
34. Hall, M.A., and Smith, L.A. (1998). Practical feature subset selection for machine learning. Computer Science ’98, Proceedings of the 21st Australasian Computer Science Conference ACSC’98, Perth, Australia, 4–6 February 1998, Springer.
35. Zhou, Z.H. (2019). Machine Learning, Springer.
36. Zhou, Z.H. (2012). Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms, CRC Press.10.1201/b12207 ↗
37. Holmes, G., Donkin, A., and Witten, I. (December, January 29). WEKA: A machine learning workbench. Proceedings of the ANZIIS ’94—Australian New Zeland Intelligent Information Systems Conference, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
38. Quantitative electrophysiological assessments as predictive markers of lower limb motor recovery after spinal cord injury: A pilot study with an adaptive trial design10.1038/s41394-022-00491-0 ↗
39. Exploring the predictive value of the evoked potentials score in MS within an appropriate patient population: A hint for an early identification of benign MS?10.1186/1471-2377-12-80 ↗
40. Machine learning algorithms introduce evoked potentials as alternative biomarkers for the expanded disability status scale prognosis of multiple sclerosis patients