Emergency Department Pediatric Readiness Among US Trauma Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We used machine learning to identify the highest impact components of emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness for predicting in-hospital survival among children cared for in US trauma centers. BACKGROUND: ED pediatric readiness is associated with improved short-term and long-term survival among injured children and part of the national verification criteria for US trauma centers. However, the components of ED pediatric readiness most predictive of survival are unknown. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children below 18 years treated in 458 trauma centers from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, matched to the 2013 National ED Pediatric Readiness Assessment and the American Hospital Association survey. We used machine learning to analyze 265 potential predictors of survival, including 152 ED readiness variables, 29 patient variables, and 84 ED-level and hospital-level variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival. RESULTS: There were 274,756 injured children, including 4585 (1.7%) who died. Nine ED pediatric readiness components were associated with the greatest increase in survival: policy for mental health care (+8.8% change in survival), policy for patient assessment (+7.5%), specific respiratory equipment (+7.2%), policy for reduced-dose radiation imaging (+7.0%), physician competency evaluations (+4.9%), recording weight in kilograms (+3.2%), life support courses for nursing (+1.0%-2.5%), and policy on pediatric triage (+2.5%). There was a 268% improvement in survival when the 5 highest impact components were present. CONCLUSIONS: ED pediatric readiness components related to specific policies, personnel, and equipment were the strongest predictors of pediatric survival and worked synergistically when combined.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".