Science fiction or clinical reality: a review of the applications of artificial intelligence along the continuum of trauma care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning describe a broad range of algorithm types that can be trained based on datasets to make predictions. The increasing sophistication of AI has created new opportunities to apply these algorithms within within trauma care. Our paper overviews the current uses of AI along the continuum of trauma care, including injury prediction, triage, emergency department volume, assessment, and outcomes. Starting at the point of injury, algorithms are being used to predict severity of motor vehicle crashes, which can help inform emergency responses. Once on the scene, AI can be used to help emergency services triage patients remotely in order to inform transfer location and urgency. For the receiving hospital, these tools can be used to predict trauma volumes in the emergency department to help allocate appropriate staffing. After patient arrival to hospital, these algorithms not only can help to predict injury severity, which can inform decision-making, but also predict patient outcomes to help trauma teams anticipate patient trajectory. Overall, these tools have the capability to transform trauma care. AI is still nascent within the trauma surgery sphere, but this body of the literature shows that this technology has vast potential. AI-based predictive tools in trauma need to be explored further through prospective trials and clinical validation of algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".