Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37751994›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2024

Triage in major incidents: development and external validation of novel machine learning-derived primary and secondary triage tools.

Yuanwei Xu, Nabeela Malik, Saisakul Chernbumroong, James Vassallo, Damian Keene, Mark Foster, Janet Lord, Antonio Belli, Timothy Hodgetts, Douglas Bowley and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yuanwei XuCentre for Computational Biology, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Nabeela MalikNIHR Surgical Reconstruction Microbiology Research Centre, Edgbaston, UK nabeelamalik@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0791-4158
Saisakul ChernbumroongCentre for Computational Biology, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
James VassalloEmergency Department, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK.
Damian KeeneUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Mark FosterNIHR Surgical Reconstruction Microbiology Research Centre, Edgbaston, UK.
Janet LordNIHR Surgical Reconstruction Microbiology Research Centre, Edgbaston, UK.
Antonio BelliNIHR Surgical Reconstruction Microbiology Research Centre, Edgbaston, UK.
Timothy HodgettsUK Strategic Command, Northwood Headquarters, Northwood, UK.
Douglas BowleyUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
George GkoutosCentre for Computational Biology, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMajor incidents (MIs) are an important cause of death and disability. Triage tools are crucial to identifying priority 1 (P1) patients-those needing time-critical, life-saving interventions. Existing expert opinion-derived tools have limited evidence supporting their use. This study employs machine learning (ML) to develop and validate models for novel primary and secondary triage tools.

methodsAdults (16+ years) from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry (January 2008-December 2017) served as surrogates for MI victims, with P1 patients identified using predefined criteria. The TARN database was split chronologically into model training and testing (70:30) datasets. Input variables included physiological parameters, age, mechanism and anatomical location of injury. Random forest, extreme gradient boosted tree, logistic regression and decision tree models were trained to predict P1 status, and compared with existing tools (Battlefield Casualty Drills (BCD) Triage Sieve, CareFlight, Modified Physiological Triage Tool, MPTT-24, MSTART, National Ambulance Resilience Unit Triage Sieve and RAMP). Primary and secondary candidate models were selected; the latter was externally validated on patients from the UK military's Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR).

resultsModels were internally tested in 57 979 TARN patients. The best existing tool was the BCD Triage Sieve (sensitivity 68.2%, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) 0.688). Inability to breathe spontaneously, presence of chest injury and mental status were most predictive of P1 status. A decision tree model including these three variables exhibited the best test characteristics (sensitivity 73.0%, AUC 0.782), forming the candidate primary tool. The proposed secondary tool (sensitivity 77.9%, AUC 0.817), applicable via a portable device, includes a fourth variable (injury mechanism). This performed favourably on external validation (sensitivity of 97.6%, AUC 0.778) in 5956 JTTR patients.

conclusionNovel triage tools developed using ML outperform existing tools in a nationally representative trauma population. The proposed primary tool requires external validation prior to consideration for practical use. The secondary tool demonstrates good external validity and may be used to support decision-making by healthcare workers responding to MIs.

Indexed as

Thoracic InjuriesTriageAdultAmbulancesHumansMachine LearningRetrospective Studiesdisaster planningmajor incidentmajor trauma managementpre-hospital caretriage

Identifiers

PMID37751994
PMCPMC10894820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.