Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Trauma Epidemiologic Registry (Trauma Epistry) (ROC-Trauma Epistry-BioLINCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Available Data: This dataset only includes traumatic injury participants. For ROC cardiac arrest Epistry data please see: [ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2](https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/studies/roc_cardiac_epistry_1_2/) and [ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3](https://biolincc.nhlbi.nih.gov/studies/roc_cardiac_epistry_3/). Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital traumatic injury responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of people that experience traumatic injury; to more fully establish the burden of traumatic injury; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes. Background: Traumatic injury is a major public health problem generating substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic burden on society. The majority of seriously injured persons are initially evaluated and cared for by prehospital providers, however the effect of EMS systems, EMS clinical care, and EMS interventions on trauma patient outcomes is largely unknown. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Previous trauma registries have generally focused primarily on hospitalized patients with limited prehospital information. Registries may also exclude trauma cases at far ends of the spectrum, such as those who die in the field or in a non-trauma center and/or patients that are treated and released. These limitations do not allow for detailed, outcome-based assessments of EMS system factors necessary to define prehospital resuscitation best practices. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital traumatic injuries matched to hospital-based outcomes in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 13,830 traumatic events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia. Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital traumatic injuries in the ROC regions. Cases were identified through review of emergency response system records including dispatch centers, EMS ground agencies, and air medical services. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads (Newgard, et al., 2008, [PMID: 18482792](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18482792/)).
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 | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.394 | 0.170 |
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".