Pediatric craniocerebral gunshot injuries: A National Trauma Database study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the outcomes and prognostic factors in pediatric craniocerebral gunshot injury (CGI) patients. Pediatric patients may have significantly different physiology, neuroplasticity, and clinical outcomes in CGI than adults. There is limited literature on this topic, mainly case reports and small case series. METHODS: We queried the National Trauma Data Bank for all pediatric CGI between 2014 and 2017. Patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. Demographic, emergency department, and clinical data were analyzed. Subgroup analysis was attempted for groups with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9 to 15 and ages 0 to 8 years. RESULTS: In a 3-year period, there were 209 pediatric patients (aged 0-18 years) presenting to American hospitals with signs of life. The overall mortality rate was 53.11%. A linear relationship was demonstrated showing a mortality rate of 79% by initial GCS in GCS score of 3, 56% in GCS scores of 4 to 8, 22% in GCS scores of 9 to 12, and 5% in GCS scores of 13 to 15. The youngest patients, aged 0 to 8 years, had dramatically better initial GCS and subsequently lower mortality rates. Regression analysis showed mortality benefit in the total population for intracranial pressure monitoring (odds ratio, 0.267) and craniotomy (odds ratio, 0.232). CONCLUSION: This study uses the National Trauma Data Bank to quantify the prevalence of pediatric intracranial gunshot wounds, with the goal to determine risk factors for prognosis in this patient population. Significant effects on mortality for invasive interventions including intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy for all patients suggest low threshold for use of these procedures if there is any clinical concern. The presence of a 79% mortality rate in patients with GCS score of 3 on presentation suggests that as long as there is not a declared neurologic death, intracranial pressure monitoring and treatment measures including craniotomy should be considered by the consulting clinician. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".