We have located links that may give you full text access.
In Search of the Truth: Choice of Ground-Truth for Predictive Modeling of Trauma Team Activation in Pediatric Trauma.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2024 Februrary 16
BACKGROUND: Assigning trauma team activation levels for trauma patients is a classification task that machine learning models can help optimize. However, performance is dependent upon the "ground-truth" labels used for training. Our purpose was to investigate two ground-truths, the Cribari matrix and the Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI), for labeling training data.
STUDY DESIGN: Data was retrospectively collected from the institutional trauma registry and electronic medical record, including all pediatric patients (age <18 y) who triggered a trauma team activation (1/2014 - 12/2021). Three ground-truths were used to label training data: 1) Cribari (Injury Severity Score >15 = full activation), 2) NFTI (positive for any of 6 criteria = full activation), and 3) the union of Cribari+NFTI (either positive = full activation).
RESULTS: Of 1,366 patients triaged by trained staff, 143 (10.47%) were considered under-triaged using Cribari, 210 (15.37%) using NFTI, and 273 (19.99%) using Cribari+NFTI. NFTI and Cribari+NFTI were more sensitive to under-triage in patients with penetrating mechanisms of injury (p = 0.006), specifically stab wounds (p = 0.014), compared to Cribari, but Cribari indicated over-triage in more patients who required prehospital airway management (p < 0.001), CPR (p = 0.017), and who had mean lower GCS scores on presentation (p < 0.001). The mortality rate was higher in the Cribari over-triage group (7.14%, n = 9) compared to NFTI and Cribari+NFTI (0.00%, n = 0, p = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: To prioritize patient safety, Cribari+NFTI appears best for training a machine learning algorithm to predict trauma team activation level.
STUDY DESIGN: Data was retrospectively collected from the institutional trauma registry and electronic medical record, including all pediatric patients (age <18 y) who triggered a trauma team activation (1/2014 - 12/2021). Three ground-truths were used to label training data: 1) Cribari (Injury Severity Score >15 = full activation), 2) NFTI (positive for any of 6 criteria = full activation), and 3) the union of Cribari+NFTI (either positive = full activation).
RESULTS: Of 1,366 patients triaged by trained staff, 143 (10.47%) were considered under-triaged using Cribari, 210 (15.37%) using NFTI, and 273 (19.99%) using Cribari+NFTI. NFTI and Cribari+NFTI were more sensitive to under-triage in patients with penetrating mechanisms of injury (p = 0.006), specifically stab wounds (p = 0.014), compared to Cribari, but Cribari indicated over-triage in more patients who required prehospital airway management (p < 0.001), CPR (p = 0.017), and who had mean lower GCS scores on presentation (p < 0.001). The mortality rate was higher in the Cribari over-triage group (7.14%, n = 9) compared to NFTI and Cribari+NFTI (0.00%, n = 0, p = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: To prioritize patient safety, Cribari+NFTI appears best for training a machine learning algorithm to predict trauma team activation level.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app