Outcome classification [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Outcome classification ======

{{rss>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rss/search/1l9TRWCYwJh-D4AZ_l0Uuy5tPt3rlzhDrswhZ4ZyFObZDPbgeW/?limit=15&utm_campaign=pubmed-2&fc=20250306034744}}

[[Outcome]] [[classification]] refers to the process of categorizing or [[label]]ing results, consequences, or [[output]]s based on predefined [[criteria]]. It is widely used in various domains, such as healthcare, finance, machine learning, and business analytics. The classification is typically based on predefined categories, which can be binary (e.g., success vs. failure), multi-class (e.g., mild, moderate, severe), or continuous (e.g., risk scores).

Examples of Outcome Classification
Healthcare

Patient [[Recovery]]: Full recovery, partial recovery, no improvement.

Disease Prediction: Low risk, moderate risk, high risk.

Surgical Outcome: Successful, complications, failure.

Finance

Loan Approval: Approved, rejected, pending.

Investment Performance: Profit, loss, break-even.

Machine Learning & AI

Sentiment Analysis: Positive, negative, neutral.

Fraud Detection: Fraudulent, non-fraudulent.

Business & Performance Metrics

Customer Satisfaction: Satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied.

Product Success: High demand, average demand, low demand.

Methods for Outcome Classification

Rule-Based Classification: Using set rules to categorize outcomes (e.g., If X > 50, classify as “high”).

Statistical Methods: Logistic regression, decision trees, random forests.

Machine Learning: Neural networks, support vector machines (SVM), deep learning.

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Text-based classification using sentiment analysis or topic modeling.
----


[[Patient-reported outcome]].

There are four different archetypes of patient [[outcome]]s that have been described:

expected [[success]]es, unexpected [[failure]]s, unexpected successes, and expected failures
((Bohnen JD, Chang ÃDC, Lillemoe KD. Reconceiving the Morbidity and Mortality
Conference in an Era of Big Data. Ann Surg. 2016;263(5):2015-2017.
doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001508.)).
----
====Types of interest====

Outcomes can be observed in the short term, medium term, and long term. 

Short-term outcome

Medium-term outcome

Long-term outcome

[[Clinical outcome]]

[[Functional outcome]]

[[Neurological outcome]]

[[Neuropsychological outcome]]

Main outcomes

The main outcomes are the essential outcomes for decision-making and are those that would form the basis of a ‘Summary of findings’ table. ‘Summary of findings’ tables provide key information about the amount of evidence for important comparisons and outcomes, the quality of the evidence, and the magnitude of effect 

There should be no more than seven main outcomes, which should generally not include surrogate or interim outcomes. They should not be chosen based on any anticipated or observed magnitude of effect or because they are likely to have been addressed in the studies to be reviewed.
 
Primary outcomes

Primary outcomes for the review should be identified from among the main outcomes. Primary outcomes are the outcomes that would be expected to be analysed should the review identify relevant studies, and conclusions about the effects of the interventions under review will be based largely on these outcomes. There should in general, be no more than three primary outcomes, and they should include at least one desirable and at least one undesirable outcome (to assess beneficial and adverse effects, respectively).
 
Secondary outcomes

Main outcomes not selected as primary outcomes would be expected to be listed as secondary outcomes. In addition, secondary outcomes may include a limited number of additional outcomes the review intends to address. These may be specific to only some comparisons in the review. For example, laboratory tests and other surrogate measures may not be considered as main outcomes as they are less important than clinical endpoints in informing decisions, but they may help explain effect or determine intervention integrity.

The urgent need for outcomes research was highlighted in the early 1980s, when researchers discovered that "geography is destiny." 

see [[Scores]]

see [[Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus outcome]].