MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974991276 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e31827e1bad

The definition of polytrauma

2013· article· en· W1974991276 on OpenAlexaff
Nerida E. Butcher, Natalie Enninghorst, Krisztián Sisák, Zsolt J. Balogh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept Iles
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolytraumaMedicineAbbreviated Injury ScaleTrauma centerInjury Severity ScoreIntensive care unitObservational studyProspective cohort studyPoison controlMajor traumaSurgeryInjury preventionPhysical therapyEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The international trauma community has recognized the lack of a validated consensus definition of "polytrauma." We hypothesized that using a subjective definition, trauma surgeons will not have substantial agreement; thus, an objective definition is needed. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted between December 2010 and June 2011 (John Hunter Hospital, Level I trauma center). Inclusion criteria were all trauma call patients with subsequent intensive care unit admission. The study was composed of four stages as follows: (1) four trauma surgeons assessed patients until 24 hours, then coded as either "yes" or "no" for polytrauma, and results compared for agreement; (2) eight trauma surgeons representing the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands graded the same prospectively assessed patients and coded as either "yes" or "no" for polytrauma; (3) 12 months later, the original four trauma surgeons repeated assessment via data sheets to test intrarater variability; and (4) individual subjective definitions were compared with three anatomic scores, namely, (a) Injury Severity Score (ISS) of greater than 15, (b) ISS of greater 17, and (c) Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of greater than 2 in at least two ISS body regions. RESULTS: A total of 52 trauma patients were included. Results for each stage were as follows: (1) κ score of 0.50, moderate agreement; (2) κ score of 0.41, moderate agreement; (3) Rater 1 had moderate intrarater agreement (κ score, 0.59), while Raters 2, 3, 4 had substantial intrarater agreement (κ scores, 0.75, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively); and (4) none had most agreement with ISS of greater than 15 (κ score, 0.16), while both definitions ISS greater than 17 and Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of greater than 2 in at least two ISS body regions had on average fair agreement (κ scores, 0.27 and 0.39, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on subjective assessments, trauma surgeons do not agree on the definition of polytrauma, with the subjective definition differing both within and across institutions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207