MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977851653 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3182a9cd31

Internationally comparable diagnosis-specific survival probabilities for calculation of the ICD-10–based Injury Severity Score

2014· article· en· W1977851653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rolf Gedeborg, Margaret Warner, Lihui Chen, Pauline Gulliver, Colin Cryer, Yvonne Robitaille, Robert Bauer, Clotilde Ubeda, Jens Lauritsen, James Harrison, Geoff Henley, John Langley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineStatisticsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10)-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) performs well but requires diagnosis-specific survival probabilities (DSPs), which are empirically derived, for its calculation. The objective was to examine if DSPs based on data pooled from several countries could increase accuracy, precision, utility, and international comparability of DSPs and ICISS. METHODS: Australia, Argentina, Austria, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden provided ICD-10-coded injury hospital discharge data, including in-hospital mortality status. Data from the seven countries were pooled using four different methods to create an international collaborative effort ICISS (ICE-ICISS). The ability of the ICISS to predict mortality using the country-specific DSPs and the pooled DSPs was estimated and compared. RESULTS: The pooled DSPs were based on a total of 3,966,550 observations of injury diagnoses from the seven countries. The proportion of injury diagnoses having at least 100 discharges to calculate the DSP varied from 12% to 48% in the country-specific data set and was 66% in the pooled data set. When compared with using a country's own DSPs for ICISS calculation, the pooled DSPs resulted in somewhat reduced discrimination in predicting mortality (difference in c statistic varied from 0.006 to 0.04). Calibration was generally good when the predicted mortality risk was less than 20%. When Danish and Swedish data were used, ICISS was combined with age and sex in a logistic regression model to predict in-hospital mortality. Including age and sex improved both discrimination and calibration substantially, and the differences from using country-specific or pooled DSPs were minor. CONCLUSION: Pooling data from seven countries generated empirically derived DSPs. These pooled DSPs facilitate international comparisons and enables the use of ICISS in all settings where ICD-10 hospital discharge diagnoses are available. The modest reduction in performance of the ICE-ICISS compared with the country-specific scores is unlikely to outweigh the benefit of internationally comparable Injury Severity Scores possible with pooled data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological study, level III.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations65
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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