Increased Trauma Center Volume Is Associated With Improved Survival After Severe Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between trauma center volume and outcome. BACKGROUND: The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium is a network of 11 centers and 60 hospitals conducting emergency care research. For many procedures, high-volume centers demonstrate superior outcomes versus low-volume centers. This remains controversial for trauma center outcomes. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium multicenter out-of-hospital Hypertonic Saline Trial in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less (traumatic brain injury) or systolic blood pressure of 90 or less and pulse of 110 or more (shock). Regression analyses evaluated associations between trauma volume and the following outcomes: 24-hour mortality, 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale incidence, worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale score, and poor 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score. RESULTS: A total of 2070 patients were evaluated: 1251 in the traumatic brain injury cohort and 819 in the shock cohort. Overall, 24-hour and 28-day mortality was 16% and 25%, respectively. For every increase of 500 trauma center admissions, there was a 7% decreased odds of 24-hour and 28-day mortality for all patients. As trauma center volume increased, nonorgan dysfunction complications increased, ventilator-free days increased, and worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale score decreased. The associations with higher trauma center volume were similar for the traumatic brain injury cohort, including better neurologic outcomes at 6 months, but not for the shock cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Increased trauma center volume was associated with increased survival, more ventilator-free days, and less severe organ failure. Trauma system planning and implementation should avoid unnecessary duplication of services.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".