Process measure aimed at reducing time to haemorrhage control: outcomes associated with Code Crimson activation in exsanguinating truncal trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major trauma activation is a process that mobilizes personnel and resources required to care for severely injured patients. Exsanguinating truncal trauma patients require an additional response beyond major trauma activation aimed at expediting haemorrhage control. To address this requirement, 'Code Crimson' (CC) activation was developed. Our aim was to examine the performance of CC activation as a process measure in the identification and management of patients with exsanguinating truncal trauma. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study (2010-2015) of all adult patients who underwent operative intervention within 6 h of arrival for truncal trauma was performed. Patients were classified into: (i) major haemorrhage (assessment of blood consumption score ≥2, base deficit ≥5 and/or transfusion ≥5 U of red blood cells pre-/intra-operatively), or (ii) no major haemorrhage. We evaluated the proportion of patients with/without major haemorrhage in which a CC was activated as well as time to operating theatre across groups. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were included with a median Injury Severity Score of 20 (interquartile range (IQR) 9-29) and overall mortality of 13%. Eighty-nine patients were classified as major haemorrhage and 61 patients underwent CC activation. The majority of CC activations (92%) fulfilled major haemorrhage criteria (sensitivity 63%, specificity 96%). Time to theatre was lower in those with CC activation with median time of 23 min (IQR 15-39.5) versus non-CC with median of 95 min (IQR 43-180, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CC was primarily activated in patients with major haemorrhage and led to a decrease in time to theatre for patients with operative truncal trauma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".