ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Pilot deployment of a machine-learning enhanced prediction of need for hemorrhage resuscitation after trauma - the ShockMatrix pilot study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning models predicting massive hemorrhage protocol in trauma.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Interpretable Multiomics Models for Predicting Surgical Interventions and Blood Transfusion Requirements in Traumatic Brain Injury.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of machine learning and human prediction to identify trauma patients in need of hemorrhage control resuscitation (ShockMatrix study): a prospective observational study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Are crystalloid-based fluid expansion strategies still relevant in the first hours of trauma induced hemorrhagic shock?Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceDecision-making in trauma patients remains challenging and often results in deviation from guidelines. Machine-Learning (ML) enhanced decision-support could improve hemorrhage resuscitation.
aimTo develop a ML enhanced decision support tool to predict Need for Hemorrhage Resuscitation (NHR) (part I) and test the collection of the predictor variables in real time in a smartphone app (part II). DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsDevelopment of a ML model from a registry to predict NHR relying exclusively on prehospital predictors. Several models and imputation techniques were tested. Assess the feasibility to collect the predictors of the model in a customized smartphone app during prealert and generate a prediction in four level-1 trauma centers to compare the predictions to the gestalt of the trauma leader. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Part 1: Model output was NHR defined by 1) at least one RBC transfusion in resuscitation, 2) transfusion ≥ 4 RBC within 6 h, 3) any hemorrhage control procedure within 6 h or 4) death from hemorrhage within 24 h. The performance metric was the F4-score and compared to reference scores (RED FLAG, ABC). In part 2, the model and clinician prediction were compared with Likelihood Ratios (LR).
resultsFrom 36,325 eligible patients in the registry (Nov 2010-May 2022), 28,614 were included in the model development (Part 1). Median age was 36 [25-52], median ISS 13 [5-22], 3249/28614 (11%) corresponded to the definition of NHR. A XGBoost model with nine prehospital variables generated the best predictive performance for NHR according to the F4-score with a score of 0.76 [0.73-0.78]. Over a 3-month period (Aug-Oct 2022), 139 of 391 eligible patients were included in part II (38.5%), 22/139 with NHR. Clinician satisfaction was high, no workflow disruption observed and LRs comparable between the model and the clinicians. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The ShockMatrix pilot study developed a simple ML-enhanced NHR prediction tool demonstrating a comparable performance to clinical reference scores and clinicians. Collecting the predictor variables in real-time on prealert was feasible and caused no workflow disruption.
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.