ArticleTransfusion2026
Early prediction of transfusion requirements in trauma patients using explainable machine learning.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early prediction of transfusion requirements in trauma patients using explainable machine learning.Transfusion · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHemorrhagic shock is the most common preventable cause of death in trauma patients. Early transfusion significantly improves survivability in patients suffering from hemorrhagic shock. We hypothesized that machine learning models could reduce time to initial transfusion by more rapidly identifying patients likely to require blood products. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective model-development and internal-validation study using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) dataset from 2019 to 2022. Adult patients aged 18 years or older were included; the only exclusion criterion was missing transfusion outcome data. Models evaluated included logistic regression, ridge regression, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), Random Forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) assessed using an 80/20 train-test split. Five-fold cross-validation was used for hyperparameter tuning. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used for model optimization.
resultsA total of 1,232,956 patients were included, of whom 109,819 (8.9%) received transfusions. XGBoost achieved the highest AUROC (0.8452). With a decision threshold of 0.0816 selected by maximizing balanced accuracy on the test set, accuracy was 0.7298, sensitivity was 0.7927, and specificity was 0.7236. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values showed that Injury Severity Score, systolic blood pressure, activation level, pulse rate, and age were the most influential predictors. DISCUSSION: XGBoost demonstrated strong predictive performance using only arrival-time variables, and SHAP explanations offered clinically intuitive reasoning. These characteristics highlight the model's potential as a rapid decision-support tool, although external validation remains an important next step.
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.