Comparison of the Pediatric Resuscitation and Trauma Outcome (PRESTO) Model and Pediatric Trauma Scoring Systems in a Middle‐Income Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pediatric resuscitation and trauma outcome (PRESTO) model was developed to aid comparisons of risk-adjusted mortality after injury in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to validate PRESTO using data from a middle-income country (MIC) trauma registry and compare its performance to the Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Revised Trauma Score, and pediatric age-adjusted shock index (SIPA). METHODS: We included children (age < 15 years) admitted to a single trauma center in South Africa from December 2012 to January 2019. We excluded patients missing variables necessary for the PRESTO model-age, systolic blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, neurologic status, and airway support. Trauma scores were assigned retrospectively. PRESTO's previously high-income country (HIC)-validated optimal threshold was compared to MIC-validated threshold using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). Prediction of in-hospital death using trauma scoring systems was compared using ROC analysis. RESULTS: Of 1160 injured children, 988 (85%) had complete data for calculation of PRESTO. Median age was 7 (IQR: 4, 11), and 67% were male. Mortality was 2% (n = 23). Mean predicted mortality was 0.5% (range 0-25.7%, AUROC 0.93). Using the HIC-validated threshold, PRESTO had a sensitivity of 26.1% and a specificity of 99.7%. The MIC threshold showed a sensitivity of 82.6% and specificity of 89.4%. The MIC threshold yielded superior discrimination (AUROC 0.86 [CI 0.78, 0.94]) compared to the previously established HIC threshold (0.63 [CI 0.54, 0.72], p < 0.0001). PRESTO showed superior prediction of in-hospital death compared to PTS and SIPA (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PRESTO can be applied in MIC settings and discriminates between children at risk for in-hospital death following trauma. Further research should clarify optimal decision thresholds for quality improvement and benchmarking in LMIC settings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".