Consensus or Data-Derived Anatomic Injury Severity Scoring?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anatomic injury severity scores can be grouped into two classes; consensus-derived and data-derived. The former, including the Injury Severity Score (ISS), the New Injury Severity Score (NISS), and the Anatomic Profile Score (APS), are based on the severity score of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), assigned by clinical experts. The latter, including the International Classification of Disease Injury Severity Score (ICISS) and the Trauma Registry Abbreviated Injury Scale Score (TRAIS) are based on survival probabilities calculated in large trauma databases. We aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of consensus-derived and data-derived severity scores when considered alone and in combination with age and physiologic status. METHODS: Analyses were based on 25,111 patients from the trauma registries of the four Level I trauma centers in the province of Quebec, Canada, abstracted between April 1998 and March 2005. The predictive validity of each severity score was evaluated in logistic regression models predicting hospital mortality using measures of discrimination (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve [AUC]) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic [HL]). RESULTS: Data-derived scores had consistently better predictive accuracy than consensus-derived scores in univariate models (p < 0.0001) but very little difference between scores was observed in models including information on age and physiologic status. The difference in AUC between the least accurate severity score (ISS) and the most accurate severity score (TRAIS) was 15% in anatomic-only models but fell to 2% in models including age and physiologic status. CONCLUSIONS: Data-derived scores provide more accurate mortality prediction than consensus-derived scores do when only anatomic injury severity is considered but offer little advantage if age and physiologic status are taken into account. This may be because of the fact that data-derived scores are not an independent measure of anatomic injury severity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".