Association of out-of-hospital advanced airway management with outcomes after traumatic brain injury and hemorrhagic shock in the ROC hypertonic saline trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prior studies suggest adverse associations between out-of-hospital advanced airway management (AAM) and patient outcomes after major trauma. This secondary analysis of data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Hypertonic Saline Trial evaluated associations between out-of-hospital AAM and outcomes in patients suffering isolated severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) or haemorrhagic shock. METHODS: This multicentre study included adults with severe TBI (GCS ≤8) or haemorrhagic shock (SBP ≤70 mm Hg, or (SBP 71-90 mm Hg and heart rate ≥108 bpm)). We compared patients receiving out-of-hospital AAM with those receiving emergency department AAM. We evaluated the associations between airway strategy and patient outcomes (28-day mortality, and 6-month poor neurologic or functional outcome) and airway strategy, adjusting for confounders. Analysis was stratified by (1) patients with isolated severe TBI and (2) patients with haemorrhagic shock with or without severe TBI. RESULTS: Of 2135 patients, we studied 1116 TBI and 528 shock; excluding 491 who died in the field, did not receive AAM or had missing data. In the shock cohort, out-of-hospital AAM was associated with increased 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 5.14; 95% CI 2.42 to 10.90). In TBI, out-of-hospital AAM showed a tendency towards increased 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 1.57; 95% CI 0.93 to 2.64) and 6-month poor functional outcome (1.63; 1.00 to 2.68), but these differences were not statistically significant. Out-of-hospital AAM was associated with poorer 6-month TBI neurologic outcome (1.80; 1.09 to 2.96). CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-hospital AAM was associated with increased mortality after haemorrhagic shock. The adverse association between out-of-hospital AAM and injury outcome is most pronounced in patients with haemorrhagic shock.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".