MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110518426 · doi:10.1177/1460408613492290

Long-term mortality after admission to hospital for trauma: A review

2013· review· en· W2110518426 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Niven, Chad G. Ball, Kevin B. Laupland

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency medicineMortality rateIntensive care medicinePopulationTrauma carePsychological interventionMajor traumaCause of deathCohortInjury Severity ScorePediatricsInjury preventionMedical emergencyPoison controlSurgeryInternal medicineDiseaseEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trauma is associated with significant acute morbidity and mortality. However, advances in the delivery of trauma care have resulted in considerable improvements in the short-term mortality from trauma. Recent studies have shown that survivors of trauma are at significant risk of delayed long-term mortality that is above that expected for a similar uninjured cohort of patients. Few studies have provided a detailed analysis of the determinants of this increased risk of death, and even fewer publications have examined the causes of death in these patients. This information is relevant because an increased number of patients will survive their injuries as acute trauma care continues to improve. It may also highlight opportunities for interventions that reduce the risk of delayed death in a population of patients that is generally young and healthy at the time of injury. As such, this article will review the literature on the long-term mortality rate and its determinants among patients who are hospitalized for severe injuries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraumaSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207