Assessment of Machine Learning Methods to Predict Massive Blood Transfusion in Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurately predicting which patients are most likely to benefit from massive transfusion protocol (MTP) activation may help patients while saving blood products and limiting cost. The purpose of this study is to explore the use of modern machine learning (ML) methods to develop and validate a model that can accurately predict the need for massive blood transfusion (MBT). METHODS: The institutional trauma registry was used to identify all trauma team activation cases between June 2015 and August 2019. We used an ML framework to explore multiple ML methods including logistic regression with forward and backward selection, logistic regression with lasso and ridge regularization, support vector machines (SVM), decision tree, random forest, naive Bayes, XGBoost, AdaBoost, and neural networks. Each model was then assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Model performance was compared to that of existing scores including the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) and the Revised Assessment of Bleeding and Transfusion (RABT). RESULTS: A total of 2438 patients were included in the study, with 4.9% receiving MBT. All models besides decision tree and SVM attained an area under the curve (AUC) of above 0.75 (range: 0.75-0.83). Most of the ML models have higher sensitivity (0.55-0.83) than the ABC and RABT score (0.36 and 0.55, respectively) while maintaining comparable specificity (0.75-0.81; ABC 0.80 and RABT 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Our ML models performed better than existing scores. Implementing an ML model in mobile computing devices or electronic health record has the potential to improve the usability.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".