ArticleBJS open2025
On-scene machine learning prediction model for massive transfusion in trauma and its association with in-hospital mortality.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly triage for massive transfusion (MT) is essential in trauma care but most existing scoring systems rely on in-hospital data. To address this limitation, a machine learning model using only prehospital variables to predict MT and stratify mortality risk was developed and externally validated.
methodsData from the Korean Trauma Data Bank from 19 trauma centres (2017-22) was used for model development and internal validation, with 2023 data for patients from four additional centres used for external validation. Trauma cases were identified using S or T codes from the Korean Classification of Diseases, 7th edition. MT was defined as ≥ 5 units packed red blood cells within 4 hours or ≥ 10 units within 24 hours. Machine learning models were trained using 21 prehospital variables, with a final ensemble model constructed from the top-performing algorithms. Model interpretability was assessed using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), and the association between predicted probability tertiles (T1-T3) and in-hospital mortality was evaluated using logistic regression.
resultsIn all, 227 567 patients were included in the development cohort and internal validation cohort, with 8867 patients in the external validation cohort. The soft-voting ensemble model, combining random forest and AdaBoost, showed high predictive performance, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.837 (internal validation) and 0.837 (external validation). SHAP analysis identified accident type as the most influential predictor, followed by consciousness level, and circulatory assistance. Higher model probability was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) 2.34 (2.16 to 2.55), 2.70 (2.49 to 2.92), and 3.53 (3.25 to 3.83) for T1, T2, and T3, respectively).
conclusionA prehospital ensemble learning model to predict MT was developed and validated, and its predictions were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. However, this study is limited by the inclusion of a single ethnicity, and future research needs to integrate data from multiple populations to enhance generalizability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.