Mahidol University International College, Salaya, 73170, Thailand.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Feb 20;22(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01528-6.
The statistical evaluation of aggregation functions for trauma grades, such as the Injury Severity Score (ISS), is largely based on measurements of their Pearson product-moment correlation with mortality. However, correlation analysis makes assumptions about the nature of the involved random variables (cardinality) and their relationship (linearity) that may not be applicable to ordinal scores such as the ISS. Moreover, using correlation as a sole evaluation criterion neglects the dynamic properties of these aggregation functions scores.
We analyze the domain and ordinal properties of the ISS comparatively to arbitrary linear and cubic aggregation functions. Moreover, we investigate the axiomatic properties of the ISS as a multicriteria aggregation procedure. Finally, we use a queuing simulation with various empirical distributions of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) grades reported in the literature, to evaluate the queuing performance of the three aggregation functions.
We show that the assumptions required for the computation of Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients are not applicable to the analysis of the association between the ISS and mortality. We suggest the use of Mutual Information, a information-theoretic statistic that is able to assess general dependence rather than a specialized, linear view based on curve-fitting. Using this metric on the same data set as the seminal study that introduced the ISS, we show that the sum of cubes conveys more information on mortality than the ISS. Moreover, we highlight some unintended, undesirable axiomatic properties of the ISS that can lead to bias in its use as a patient triage criterion. Lastly, our queuing simulation highlights the sensitivity of the queuing performance of different aggregation procedures to the underlying distribution of AIS grades among patients.
Viewing the ISS, and other possible aggregation functions for multiple AIS scores, as mere operational indicators of the priority of care, rather than cardinal measures of the response of the human body to multiple injuries (as was conjectured in the seminal study introducing the ISS) offers a perspective for their construction and evaluation on more robust grounds than the correlation coefficient. In this regard, Mutual Information appears as a more appropriate measure for the study of the association between injury severity and mortality, and queuing simulations as an actionable way to adapt the choice of an aggregation function to the underlying distribution of AIS scores.
创伤等级的聚合函数(如损伤严重度评分(ISS))的统计评估主要基于其与死亡率的皮尔逊积矩相关系数的测量。然而,相关分析对所涉及的随机变量的性质(基数)及其关系(线性)做出了假设,而这些假设可能不适用于等级评分,如 ISS。此外,使用相关性作为唯一的评估标准忽略了这些聚合函数评分的动态特性。
我们比较了 ISS 与任意线性和立方聚合函数的域和顺序属性。此外,我们还研究了 ISS 作为多准则聚合过程的公理属性。最后,我们使用具有文献中报告的各种简略损伤量表(AIS)等级的经验分布的排队模拟来评估这三种聚合函数的排队性能。
我们表明,计算皮尔逊积矩相关系数所需的假设不适用于分析 ISS 与死亡率之间的关联。我们建议使用互信息,这是一种信息论统计量,能够评估一般依赖性,而不是基于曲线拟合的专门、线性视图。在与首次提出 ISS 的开创性研究相同的数据集上使用此指标,我们表明立方和比 ISS 更能传达关于死亡率的信息。此外,我们强调了 ISS 一些意想不到的、不理想的公理属性,这些属性可能导致其在用作患者分诊标准时存在偏差。最后,我们的排队模拟强调了不同聚合过程的排队性能对患者 AIS 等级分布的敏感性。
将 ISS 和其他可能的多个 AIS 评分的聚合函数仅仅视为护理优先级的操作指标,而不是人体对多重损伤的反应的基数衡量标准(如首次提出 ISS 的开创性研究中推测的那样),为它们的构建和评估提供了比相关系数更可靠的基础。在这方面,互信息似乎是研究损伤严重度与死亡率之间关联的更合适的指标,而排队模拟则是根据 AIS 分数的基础分布来调整聚合函数选择的可行方法。