MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982659764 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3181837994

Ranking of Trauma Center Performance: The Bare Essentials

2008· article· en· W1982659764 on OpenAlexaff
Avery B. Nathens, Wei Xiong, Shahid Shafi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrauma centerQuartileInjury Severity ScoreAbbreviated Injury ScaleMedicineRanking (information retrieval)Emergency medicineMortality rateInjury preventionPoison controlDemographyStatisticsInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyMathematicsConfidence intervalComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of trauma center performance has been limited to comparisons of observed versus expected mortality using trauma and injury severity score methodology. Few studies have focused on identifying top performers. In part, this is due to the perceived need for extensive data required to adequately risk adjust. We set out to identify the patient and injury-related factors that most affect case-mix across centers and thus are most likely to alter assessments of hospital performance. METHODS: One hundred ninety trauma centers contributing data to the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) during 2004 to 2005 were used for hospital rankings (n = 169,929 patients). Trauma centers were ranked by crude mortality. We then added variables [injury severity score {ISS}, systolic blood pressure {SBP}, mechanism, age, gender, comorbidities, body region abbreviated injury scale {AIS}] singly to a risk-adjustment model to obtain adjusted probability of death. Trauma centers were then ranked again. The variable that affected rankings the greatest was kept and the process was repeated in an iterative fashion until the incremental change in ranks was minimal. RESULTS: ISS accounted for the most variation in mortality rates across trauma centers, shown by the large rank change with addition of ISS to the model. Specifically, when ISS was taken into consideration, 92% of trauma centers changed their rank by >/=3 and almost half their quartile rank by at least 1. In lesser order of importance, age, SBP, head AIS, mechanism, gender, and abdominal AIS were relevant to adjust for case mix. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma center rankings are affected by few parameters, reflecting their relationship to mortality and their relative frequencies. Complex risk adjustment methodology is not required to address differences in case mix. Data abstraction for the purpose of comparing trauma center performance should focus on ensuring that at minimum, these variables are collected with a high degree of accuracy.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.220
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.220
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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