ArticleNature communications2026
Prehospital real-time AI for trauma mortality prediction: a multi-institutional and multi-national validation study.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Early Risk Stratification of Severe Trauma in the Emergency Department: Integrating Clinical Scoring Systems, Dynamic Biomarkers, and Artificial Intelligence-A Narrative Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early identification of high-risk trauma patients in the prehospital setting is crucial for optimizing resource allocation and improving survival. We developed and externally validated a real-time AI model predicting emergency room mortality using 21 prehospital variables. Model development and internal validation utilized the Korean Trauma Data Bank (KTDB; 204,189 patients), and external validation included four South Korean trauma centers (8,358 patients) and one Australian Level 1 center (3,578 patients). Our Prehospital-AI model, an ensemble of XGBoost, LightGBM, and random forest, achieved an AUROC of 0.923 (sensitivity: 0.780, specificity: 0.880) on the test set, outperforming the shock index (AUROC: 0.712). External validation yielded AUROCs of 0.925-0.956 across South Korean centers and 0.895 in the Australian center. Here we show that the Prehospital-AI model enables accurate, real-time risk assessment in the prehospital setting, outperforming traditional triage tools and improving trauma system efficiency. Nonetheless, additional multinational studies are warranted to further evaluate its generalizability across diverse trauma care systems.
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.