{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037309995393827726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03638876093965914, 'mean_word_length': 5.561933534743202, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Prediction Model for Selective Use of Facial Computed Tomography in Blunt Head Trauma Patients

Background: Head trauma patients may have concomitant facial fractures, which are usually underdetected by head computed tomography alone. This study aimed to identify the clinical indicators of facial fractures and to develop a risk-prediction model to guide the discriminative use of additional facial computed tomography in head trauma. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed head trauma patients undergoing simultaneous head and facial computed tomography at a Level II trauma center from 2015 to 2018. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate independent risk factors for concomitant facial fractures in head trauma patients using data collected from 2015 to 2017, and a risk-prediction model was created accordingly. Model performance was validated with data from 2018. Results: In total, 5045 blunt head trauma patients (development cohort, 3534 patients, 2015 to 2017; validation cohort, 1511 patients, 2018) were enrolled. Concomitant facial fractures occurred in 723 head trauma patients (14.3 percent). Ten clinical and head computed tomographic variables were identified as predictors, including age, male sex, falls from elevation, motorcycle collisions, Glasgow Coma Scale scores less than 14, epistaxis, tooth rupture, facial lesions, intracranial hemorrhage, and skull fracture. In the development cohort, the model showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.891), calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow C test, p = 0.691), and precision (Brier score = 0.066). In the validation cohort, the model demonstrated excellent discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.907), good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow C test, p = 0.652), and good precision (Brier score = 0.083). With this model, 77.1 percent of unnecessary facial computed tomography could be avoided. Conclusion: This model could guide the discriminative use of additional facial computed tomography to detect concomitant facial fractures in blunt head trauma. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.