Attergrim Jonatan, Szolnoky Kelvin, Strömmer Lovisa, Brattström Olof, Wihlke Gunilla, Jacobsson Martin, Gerdin Wärnberg Martin
Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 6;15(6):e099624. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099624.
To develop models to predict opportunities for improvement in trauma care and compare the performance of these models to the currently used audit filters.
Retrospective registry-based study.
Single-centre, Scandinavian level one equivalent trauma centre.
8220 adult trauma patients screened for opportunities for improvement between 2013 and 2022.
Two machine learning models (logistic regression and XGBoost) and the currently used audit filters were compared. Internal validation by an expanding window approach with annual updates was used for model evaluation. Performance measured by discrimination, calibration, sensitivity and false positive rate of opportunities for improvement prediction.
A total of 8220 patients, with a mean age of 45 years, were analysed; 69% were men with a mean injury severity score of 12. Opportunities for improvement were identified in 496 (6%) patients. Both the logistic regression and XGBoost models were well-calibrated, with intercalibration indices of 0.02 and 0.02, respectively. The models demonstrated higher areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) (logistic regression: 0.71; XGBoost: 0.74). The XGBoost model had a lower false positive rate at a similar sensitivity (false positive rate: 0.63). The audit filters had an AUC of 0.62 and a false positive rate of 0.67.
The logistic regression and XGBoost models outperformed audit filters in predicting opportunities for improvement among adult trauma patients and can potentially be used to improve systems for selecting patients for trauma peer review.
开发模型以预测创伤护理改善机会,并将这些模型的性能与当前使用的审核筛选标准进行比较。
基于回顾性登记的研究。
单中心,相当于斯堪的纳维亚一级创伤中心。
2013年至2022年间筛选出改善机会的8220例成年创伤患者。
比较了两种机器学习模型(逻辑回归和XGBoost)以及当前使用的审核筛选标准。采用逐年更新的扩展窗口方法进行内部验证以评估模型。通过改善机会预测的辨别力、校准度、敏感性和假阳性率来衡量性能。
共分析了8220例患者,平均年龄45岁;69%为男性,平均损伤严重程度评分为12分。496例(6%)患者发现有改善机会。逻辑回归模型和XGBoost模型校准良好,校准指数分别为0.02和0.02。这些模型在受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)更高(逻辑回归:0.71;XGBoost:0.74)。在相似敏感性下,XGBoost模型假阳性率更低(假阳性率:0.63)。审核筛选标准的AUC为0.62,假阳性率为0.67。
在预测成年创伤患者改善机会方面,逻辑回归模型和XGBoost模型优于审核筛选标准,可能有助于改进创伤同行评审患者选择系统。