Comparison of trauma centre outcome performance for young adults and geriatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing number of geriatric trauma patients in developed countries is a preoccupation at every stage in the continuum of trauma care. In the acute care setting, elderly patients require specific care strategies and patient outcome may be compromised by varying degrees of dedication to geriatric trauma across hospitals. We hypothesised that the performance of trauma centres in the population of geriatric patients differs to that among young adults. Analyses were based on the evaluation of hospital mortality across the 59 trauma centres of the inclusive trauma system in the province of Quebec, Canada (1999–2006). Trauma centre evaluation was based on estimates of risk-adjusted mortality generated using a random-intercept hierarchical logistic regression model. Adjustment was performed with a risk score generated by the Trauma Risk Adjustment Model. Results for young adults (16–64 years) and geriatric patients (≥65 years) were compared using hospital ranks and outliers. Among the 55 355 young adult patients, mortality was 3.6%. Among the 30 983 geriatric patients, mortality was 8.4%. The two populations only had 2 out of 10 outliers in common. The Spearman's correlation coefficient describing agreement between hospital ranks was 0.201 (95% CI −0.061 to 0.436). Results indicate that trauma centre performance in the geriatric trauma population may be very different to that observed for young adults. This research suggests that the two populations should be evaluated separately and quality improvement efforts should be designed for each population individually.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".