Performance of International Classification of Diseases–based injury severity measures used to predict in-hospital mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the main classification system used for population-based injury surveillance activities but does not contain information on injury severity. ICD-based injury severity measures can be empirically derived or mapped, but no single approach has been formally recommended. This study aimed to compare the performance of ICD-based injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality among injury-related admissions. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Global Health databases were searched from their inception through September 2014. Observational studies that assessed the performance of ICD-based injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality and reported discriminative ability using the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were included. Metrics of model performance were extracted. Pooled AUC were estimated under random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty-two eligible studies reported 72 assessments of discrimination on ICD-based injury severity measures. Reported AUC ranged from 0.681 to 0.958. Of the 72 assessments, 46 showed excellent (0.80 ≤ AUC < 0.90) and 6 outstanding (AUC ≥ 0.90) discriminative ability. Pooled AUC for ICD-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) based on the product of traditional survival proportions was significantly higher than measures based on ICD mapped to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores (0.863 vs. 0.825 for ICDMAP-ISS [p = 0.005] and ICDMAP-NISS [p = 0.016]). Similar results were observed when studies were stratified by the type of data used (trauma registry or hospital discharge) or the provenance of survival proportions (internally or externally derived). However, among studies published after 2003 the Trauma Mortality Prediction Model based on ICD-9 codes (TMPM-9) demonstrated superior discriminative ability than ICISS using the product of traditional survival proportions (0.850 vs. 0.802, p = 0.002). Models generally showed poor calibration. CONCLUSION: ICISS using the product of traditional survival proportions and TMPM-9 predict mortality more accurately than those mapped to AIS codes and should be preferred for describing injury severity when ICD is used to record injury diagnoses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
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 | 0.035 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".