The Fastest Route Between Two Points is Not Always a Straight Line: An Analysis of Air and Land Transfer of Nonpenetrating Trauma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The distance beyond which helicopter transport is faster than ground for interfacility transfer of trauma patients has not been established. Our objective was to determine whether such a threshold exists. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 243 patients transported by land and 139 patients by air from 13 sites during a 3-year period. Time intervals between critical events were compared for the two modes of transport at each site. RESULTS: The time interval between the decision to transfer and the actual departure time was shorter for patients transferred by land from all sites studied (mean 41.3 versus 89.7 minutes, p < 0.001). The travel time was shorter by helicopter from all sites (mean 58.4 versus 78.9 minutes, p < 0.001). The time between the decision to transfer and the arrival at the trauma center was similar at most sites but faster by land overall (mean 120.3 versus 150.0 minutes, p = 0.014). No threshold was detected beyond which helicopter transport was superior. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors other than the distance to be traveled determine the time required for interfacility transfer of trauma patients. A fixed distance threshold beyond which helicopter transport should be used does not exist. The decision as to which mode of transport to use for emergent trauma patient transfers should be based upon multiple factors including the distance traveled and ambulance availability, and must be individualized for each site that transfers patients.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".