MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060583491 · doi:10.3109/10903120903349788

Air Versus Ground Transport of the Major Trauma Patient: A Natural Experiment

2009· article· en· W2060583491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrauma centerInjury Severity ScoreEmergency medicineMajor traumaRetrospective cohort studyAir transportInjury preventionMedical emergencyPoison controlSurgeryAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: 1) To compare the outcomes of adult trauma patients transported to a level I trauma center by helicopter vs. ground ambulance. 2) To determine whether using a unique "natural experiment" design to obtain the ground comparison group will reduce potential confounders. METHODS: Outcomes in adult trauma patients transported to a tertiary care trauma center by air were compared with outcomes in a group of patients who were accepted by the online medical control physician for air transport, but whose air missions were aborted for aviation reasons (weather, maintenance, out on a mission); these patients were subsequently transported by ground ambulance instead. Outcomes were also analyzed for a third ground control group composed of all other adult trauma patients transported by ground during this time period. Data were collected by retrospective database review of trauma patients transferred between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 2003. Outcomes were measured by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) analysis. Z and W scores were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven missions were flown by LifeFlight during the study period vs. 57 in the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group. The mean ages, gender distributions, mechanisms of injury, and Injury Severity Scores (ISSs) were similar in the two groups. Per 100 patients transported, 5.61 more lives were saved in the air group vs. the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group (Z = 3.37). As per TRISS analysis, this is relative to the expected mortality seen with a similar group in the Major Trauma Outcomes Study (MTOS). The Z score for the clinical accept-aviation abort ground transport group was 0.4. The 1,195 patients in the third all-other ground control group had a higher mean age, lower mean ISS, and worse outcomes according to TRISS analysis (W = -2.02). CONCLUSIONS: This unique natural experiment led to better matched air vs. ground cohorts for comparison. As per TRISS analysis, air transport of the adult major trauma patient is associated with significantly improved survival as compared with ground transport.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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