Outcomes after concomitant traumatic brain injury and hemorrhagic shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Often the clinician is faced with a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma in patients with concomitant traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hemorrhagic shock (HS), as rapid deterioration from either can be fatal. Knowledge about outcomes after concomitant TBI and HS may help prioritize the emergent management of these patients. We hypothesized that patients with concomitant TBI and HS (TBI + HS) had worse outcomes and required more intensive care compared with patients with only one of these injuries. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelets and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial. TBI was defined by a head Abbreviated Injury Scale score greater than 2. HS was defined as a base excess of -4 or less and/or shock index of 0.9 or greater. The primary outcome for this analysis was mortality at 30 days. Logistic regression, using generalized estimating equations, was used to model categorical outcomes. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy patients were included. Patients with TBI + HS had significantly higher lactate (median, 6.3; interquartile range, 4.7-9.2) compared with the TBI group (median, 3.3; interquartile range, 2.3-4). TBI + HS patients had higher activated prothrombin times and lower platelet counts. Unadjusted mortality was higher in the TBI + HS (51.6%) and TBI (50%) groups compared with the HS (17.5%) and neither group (7.7%). Adjusted odds of death in the TBI and TBI + HS groups were 8.2 (95% confidence interval, 3.4-19.5) and 10.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.8-23.2) times higher, respectively. Ventilator, intensive care unit-free and hospital-free days were lower in the TBI and TBI + HS groups compared with the other groups. Patients with TBI + HS or TBI had significantly greater odds of developing a respiratory complication compared with the neither group. CONCLUSION: The addition of TBI to HS is associated with worse coagulopathy before resuscitation and increased mortality. When controlling for multiple known confounders, the diagnosis of TBI alone or TBI+HS was associated with significantly greater odds of developing respiratory complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".