ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and validation of a prediction model for respiratory complications and in-hospital mortality in trauma patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Respiratory complications are major contributors to morbidity and mortality in trauma patients, yet conventional predictive models remain limited in scope and performance. We developed and validated an ensemble machine learning model that integrates both prehospital and in-hospital clinical variables to predict respiratory complications in trauma patients. We developed and internally validated machine learning models using data from the Korea Trauma Data Bank, comprising records from 19 major trauma centers in Korea between 2017 and 2022 (discovery; n = 48,376). For external validation, data from four additional trauma centers added in 2023 (external validation; n = 2,010) were used. Trauma patients were identified using S or T codes in accordance with the 7th Korean Standard Classification of Diseases. Respiratory complications were defined as a composite outcome including acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia, and unplanned intubation. The models were trained using 19 pre-hospital and in-hospital variables, and the final prediction model was constructed by ensembling the top-performing models. Model interpretability was achieved through Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). Lastly, the predicted probabilities were categorized into tertiles (T1, T2, and T3), and their association with in-hospital mortality was assessed using logistic regression analysis. Among 48,376 trauma patients in the discovery cohort, the final soft-voting ensemble model combining adaptive boosting, gradient boosting machine, and logistic regression achieved an area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.834 in discovery cohort and 0.839 in external validation cohort. SHAP analysis identified pre-hospital pulse, Injury Severity Score, and age as the most influential predictors of respiratory complications. Higher predicted risk of respiratory complications was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality, with adjusted odds ratios rising across predicted risk tertiles (T1: 2.59 [95% CI, 2.09–3.22]; T2: 2.77 [2.21–3.47]; and T3: 3.91 [2.30–5.11]). The proposed ensemble model exhibited high accuracy and generalizability in predicting respiratory complications and mortality risk among trauma patients. By using both pre-hospital and in-hospital clinical data, the model offers a potentially valuable tool for early triage and intervention in trauma care. Prospective validation is needed to evaluate its clinical utility in real-world trauma settings.
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.