ArticlePloS one2025
MIASurviveMTP: Machine learning for immediate assessment and survival prediction after massive transfusion protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early triage of trauma patients requiring massive transfusion (MT) may help to marshal appropriate resources and improve treatment and outcome. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer theoretical advantages compared to conventional prediction algorithms but have not been thoroughly evaluated in this population. We hypothesized that AI/ML techniques incorporating all available data in a patient's medical record could achieve similar, if not higher, performance in the prediction of mortality in MT patients as compared to existing models. Patients from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Project database (TQIP) were retrospectively reviewed. Those receiving ≥ 5 units of red blood cells and/or whole blood within the first four hours of arrival were defined as MT patients. Those receiving ≥10 units were identified as ultramassive transfusion (UMT) patients. ML models were created to predict 6-hour mortality using variables available at different time points, including patient arrival. Of 5,481,046 patients in TQIP from 2017 to 2021, 47,744 received MT and 20,337 of these received UMT. Using only variables available on arrival, MT AUROC was 0.901 [95% CI 0.895-0.910] which increased to 0.943 [95% CI 0.938-0.948] with addition of 4-hour variables. For UMT, arrival AUROC was 0.858 [95% CI 0.846-0.872] and increased to 0.922 [95% CI 0.914-0.931] at 4 hours. ML models reliably predict mortality in both MT and UMT patients. These are the only ML models trained on MT and UMT patients. Future work can focus on prospective implementation of these models with potential direct integration into the electronic medical record. Real-time utilization of comprehensive patient data may enhance clinical decision-making regarding which patients should continue receiving massive transfusion, thus optimizing the allocation of this limited resource.
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.