ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
Machine learning classification of new firearm injury encounters in the St Louis region: 2010-2020.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Crisis of Adolescent Firearm Reinjury: A 14-Year Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Hospital pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Initial Injury Type and Violent Reinjury.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Firearm classification from acoustic signals using combined mel spectrogram, MFCC, LFCC, and CRNN networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Region-Wide Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Program : A Pilot Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Observational
- Firearm injury risk detection and prevention.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo improve firearm injury encounter classification (new vs follow-up) using machine learning (ML) and compare our ML model to other common approaches. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study used data from the St Louis region-wide hospital-based violence intervention program data repository (2010-2020). We randomly selected 500 patients with a firearm injury diagnosis for inclusion, with 808 total firearm injury encounters split (70/30) for training and testing. We trained a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model with the following predictors: admission type, time between firearm injury visits, number of prior firearm injury emergency department (ED) visits, encounter type (ED or other), and diagnostic codes. Our gold standard for new firearm injury encounter classification was manual chart review. We then used our test data to compare the performance of our ML model to other commonly used approaches (proxy measures of ED visits and time between firearm injury encounters, and diagnostic code encounter type designation [initial vs subsequent or sequela]). Performance metrics included area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThe ML model had excellent discrimination (0.92, 0.88-0.96) with high sensitivity (0.95, 0.90-0.98) and specificity (0.89, 0.81-0.95). AUC was significantly higher than time-based outcomes, sensitivity was slightly (but not significantly) lower than other approaches, and specificity was higher than all other methods. DISCUSSION: ML successfully delineated new firearm injury encounters, outperforming other approaches in ruling out encounters for follow-up.
conclusionML can be used to identify new firearm injury encounters and may be particularly useful in studies assessing re-injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.