Multicenter Canadian Study of Prehospital Trauma Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the type of on-site care a trauma patient receives affects outcome. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The controversy regarding the prehospital care of trauma patients between Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) is ongoing. Due to this unresolved controversy, as well as historical, cultural, and political factors, there are significant variations with respect to the type of prehospital care available for trauma patients. METHODS: This prospective cohort study compared three types of prehospital trauma care systems: Montreal, where physicians provide ALS (MD-ALS); Toronto, where paramedics provide ALS (PMD-ALS); and Quebec City, where emergency medical technicians provide BLS only (EMT-BLS). The study took advantage of this variation to evaluate the association between the type of on-site care and mortality in patients with major life-threatening injuries. All patients were treated at highly specialized tertiary (level I) trauma hospitals. The main outcome measure was death as a result of injury. Follow-up was to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The overall mortality rates by type of on-site personnel were physicians 35%, paramedics 24%, and EMTs 18%. For patients with major but survivable trauma, the overall mortality rates were physicians 32%, paramedics 28%, and EMTs 26%. The overall mortality rate of patients receiving only BLS at the scene was 18% compared to 29% for patients receiving ALS. For the subgroup of patients with major but survivable injuries, the mortality rates were 30% for ALS and 26% for BLS. The adjusted increased risk for mortality in patients receiving ALS at the scene was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: In urban centers with highly specialized level I trauma centers, there is no benefit in having on-site ALS for the prehospital management of trauma 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".