MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416056387 · doi:10.7759/cureus.96430

Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma (FAST) in Hemorrhage Stratification and Trauma Severity Classification

2025· review· en· W4416056387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammed Wazir, Kulpreet Kaur, Zainab Shehzadi, Ahmed Moustafa Mohamed Mohamed, Beshr Mosa Basha, Muhammad Imran Butt, Shahmeen Rasul, Mustafa Makkiyah

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Intensive care unitBluntFocused assessment with sonography for traumaInjury Severity ScorePopulationBlunt traumaGrading scalePenetrating traumaMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading preventable cause of early death after trauma. The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examination is widely used to detect free intraperitoneal fluid, but its prognostic value for hemorrhage grading and trauma severity classification requires synthesis. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched through March 2025 for human studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic utility of FAST in blunt or penetrating trauma. Studies were selected based on the population (or patient/problem), intervention, comparison (or control), and outcome (PICO) framework, excluding case reports, editorials, conference abstracts, animal studies, and those without extractable outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, Version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Seven studies, including approximately 7,310 patients, met the inclusion criteria. FAST demonstrated high specificity up to 97% for detecting clinically significant hemoperitoneum. Positive findings were associated with increased transfusion requirements, greater need for surgery or embolization, higher intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, elevated injury severity, and higher short-term mortality. Semi-quantitative interpretations, such as the number and distribution of positive zones, enhanced hemorrhage stratification. Combining FAST with physiological parameters in validated trauma scoring systems improved the prediction of massive transfusion and operative urgency. Despite operator dependence and limited sensitivity for small or retroperitoneal bleeds, standardized protocols and serial assessments can strengthen its role in early trauma decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.016
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207