Department of Surgery (Chacon), University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
School of Medicine (Liu, Ting), University of Rochester, Rochester NY.
J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Aug 1;239(2):134-144. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000001044. Epub 2024 Jul 17.
Assigning trauma team activation (TTA) levels for trauma patients is a classification task that machine learning models can help optimize. However, performance is dependent on the "ground-truth" labels used for training. Our purpose was to investigate 2 ground truths, the Cribari matrix and the Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI), for labeling training data.
Data were retrospectively collected from the institutional trauma registry and electronic medical record, including all pediatric patients (age <18 years) who triggered a TTA (January 2014 to December 2021). Three ground truths were used to label training data: (1) Cribari (Injury Severity Score >15 = full activation), (2) NFTI (positive for any of 6 criteria = full activation), and (3) the union of Cribari+NFTI (either positive = full activation).
Of 1,366 patients triaged by trained staff, 143 (10.47%) were considered undertriaged using Cribari, 210 (15.37%) using NFTI, and 273 (19.99%) using Cribari+NFTI. NFTI and Cribari+NFTI were more sensitive to undertriage in patients with penetrating mechanisms of injury (p = 0.006), specifically stab wounds (p = 0.014), compared with Cribari, but Cribari indicated overtriage in more patients who required prehospital airway management (p < 0.001), CPR (p = 0.017), and who had mean lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores on presentation (p < 0.001). The mortality rate was higher in the Cribari overtriage group (7.14%, n = 9) compared with NFTI and Cribari+NFTI (0.00%, n = 0, p = 0.005).
To prioritize patient safety, Cribari+NFTI appears best for training a machine learning algorithm to predict the TTA level.
为创伤患者分配创伤团队激活(TTA)级别是机器学习模型可以帮助优化的分类任务。然而,性能取决于用于训练的“真实”标签。我们的目的是研究两种真实标签,Cribari 矩阵和创伤干预需求(NFTI),用于标记训练数据。
数据从机构创伤登记处和电子病历中回顾性收集,包括所有触发 TTA 的儿科患者(年龄<18 岁)(2014 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月)。使用三种真实标签标记训练数据:(1)Cribari(损伤严重程度评分>15=完全激活),(2)NFTI(6 项标准中任何一项阳性=完全激活),和(3)Cribari+NFTI 的并集(任何一项阳性=完全激活)。
在经过培训的工作人员分诊的 1366 名患者中,使用 Cribari 认为 143 名(10.47%)分诊不足,210 名(15.37%)使用 NFTI,273 名(19.99%)使用 Cribari+NFTI。NFTI 和 Cribari+NFTI 在穿透性损伤机制的患者中对分诊不足更敏感(p=0.006),特别是刺伤(p=0.014),与 Cribari 相比,但 Cribari 在需要院前气道管理(p<0.001)、CPR(p=0.017)和入院时平均格拉斯哥昏迷评分较低(p<0.001)的患者中指示分诊过度。Cribari 分诊过度组的死亡率较高(7.14%,n=9),与 NFTI 和 Cribari+NFTI(0.00%,n=0,p=0.005)相比。
为了优先考虑患者安全,Cribari+NFTI 似乎最适合训练机器学习算法来预测 TTA 级别。