ArticleEBioMedicine2026
Accurate, fair, and generalisable scaling of injury severity score-based AI with demographics in terms of mortality in patients with trauma: multi-centre, multi-national retrospective cohort study.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate and equitable prediction of trauma-related in-hospital mortality is critical for guiding clinical decisions and optimising trauma care resources. Traditional severity scoring systems like the Injury Severity Score (ISS) do not account for demographic factors, potentially limiting their fairness and generalisability across diverse populations.
methodsWe developed and externally validated an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on ISS and integrated demographic features (age and sex) to predict in-hospital mortality after trauma. Data from the Korean Trauma Data Bank were used for model development and internal validation, comprising 121,418 patients with trauma aged ≥15 years treated at 19 trauma centres in South Korea (2017-2022). External validation was performed on an independent cohort of 7458 patients from five trauma centres (four in South Korea and one in Australia, 2022-2024). The primary outcome was trauma-related in-hospital mortality. Predictive performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and balanced accuracy. Fairness was evaluated by comparing AUROC differences across age (<65 vs ≥65 years) and sex (female vs male) subgroups.
findingsThe ISS-based AI model incorporating age and sex achieved high predictive performance (internal validation AUROC, 0.934; external validation AUROC range, 0.901-0.920), outperforming conventional ISS-based methods. The model also demonstrated improved fairness, showing reduced AUROC differences across subgroups (age: 0.068 vs 0.091; sex: 0.021 vs 0.046 for AI model vs ISS, respectively).
interpretationScaling an ISS-based AI model through demographic integration yielded accurate, fair, and generalisable predictions of trauma-related in-hospital mortality. This approach may enhance trauma care decision-making and enable more equitable resource allocation across diverse clinical settings.
fundingThis research was supported by the MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP-2025-RS-2024-00438239) and the Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (RS-2024-00509257, Global AI Frontier Lab). In addition, this research was supported by the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (RS-2025-02220492).
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.