Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37822960›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Exploring the effectiveness of artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in trauma triage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oluwasemilore Adebayo, Zunira Areeba Bhuiyan, Zubair Ahmed

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Prognostic value of admission ROTEM in trauma: enhancing 30-day all-cause mortality prediction using machine learning.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Oluwasemilore AdebayoInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0659-6864
Zunira Areeba BhuiyanInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Zubair AhmedInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) has advanced rapidly in the medical field, notably in trauma medicine. We aimed to systematically appraise the efficacy of AI, ML and DL models for predicting outcomes in trauma triage compared to conventional triage tools. Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, ProQuest, Embase and reference lists for studies published from 1 January 2010 to 9 June 2022. We included studies which analysed the use of AI, ML and DL models for trauma triage in human subjects. Reviews and AI/ML/DL models used for other purposes such as teaching, or diagnosis were excluded. Data was extracted on AI/ML/DL model type, comparison tools, primary outcomes and secondary outcomes. We performed meta-analysis on studies reporting our main outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and critical care admission. Results: One hundred and fourteen studies were identified in our search, of which 14 studies were included in the systematic review and 10 were included in the meta-analysis. All studies performed external validation. The best-performing AI/ML/DL models outperformed conventional trauma triage tools for all outcomes in all studies except two. For mortality, the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) score difference between AI/ML/DL models and conventional trauma triage was 0.09, 95% CI (0.02, 0.15), favouring AI/ML/DL models ( Conclusions: This review demonstrates that the predictive ability of AI/ML/DL models is significantly better than conventional trauma triage tools for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and critical care admission. However, further research and in particular randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the clinical and economic impacts of using AI/ML/DL models in trauma medicine.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningtraumatriage

Identifiers

PMID37822960
PMCPMC10563501
OpenAlexW4387464369

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.