Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40480673›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Predicting opportunities for improvement in trauma care using machine learning: a retrospective registry-based study at a major trauma centre.

Jonatan Attergrim, Kelvin Szolnoky, Lovisa Strömmer, Olof Brattström, Gunilla Wihlke, Martin Jacobsson, Martin Gerdin Wärnberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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. Article
  2. Audit filters: beyond linear assumption.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026
    Article
  3. Audit filters: netting opportunities.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025
    Article
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

7 authors.

Jonatan Attergrim *Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden jonatan.attergrim@ki.se.
Kelvin Szolnoky *Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0554-1872
Lovisa StrömmerDepartment of Surgery, Capio S:t Görans Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olof BrattströmDepartment of Anesthesiology, Mora Hospital, Mora, Sweden.
Gunilla WihlkePerioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martin JacobssonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martin Gerdin WärnbergDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6069-4794

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop models to predict opportunities for improvement in trauma care and compare the performance of these models to the currently used audit filters.

designRetrospective registry-based study.

settingSingle-centre, Scandinavian level one equivalent trauma centre.

participants8220 adult trauma patients screened for opportunities for improvement between 2013 and 2022. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Machine LearningQuality ImprovementTrauma CentersWounds and InjuriesAdultFemaleHumansInjury Severity ScoreLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesROC CurveMachine LearningQuality ImprovementTrauma

Identifiers

PMID40480673
PMCPMC12161345

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.