SynthesisScientific reports2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of machine learning models predicting massive hemorrhage protocol in trauma.
Synthesis 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Timely activation of massive hemorrhage protocols (MHP) is critical to prevent exsanguination and improve survival in trauma patients. Current clinical tools for predicting MHP need have limited sensitivity and moderate specificity. Machine learning (ML) models may enhance early recognition of life-threatening hemorrhage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that developed or validated ML models to predict MHP need in patients with traumatic injuries (PROSPERO CRD42024574891). Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST, a funnel plot and Deeks' statistical test, and the GRADE checklist. Of the 4542 abstracts screened, 21 studies (50 ML models) were included. The ML model types with the highest pooled AUROC were random forest (0.89, 95% CI 0.85-0.93), neural networks (0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.93), and XGBoost Models (0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93), all of which commonly outperforming their non-ML comparator. Despite superior discrimination, most ML models lacked robust subgroup performance evaluation, external validation, or feasibility for clinical deployment. The median APPRAISE-AI methodologic quality score was 51 out of 100 (Interquartile range [IQR]: 46, 55). Further, model reporting quality (TRIPOD + AI) was moderate; no study achieved full points across all 27 reporting items. Risk of bias was frequently high or unclear. Thus, pooled performance metrics should be interpreted with caution, as they may be influenced by methodological weaknesses in the underlying studies. These findings underscore the need for more rigorously designed and transparently reported ML studies in trauma care. Realizing the potential of ML for supporting MHP delivery in trauma care will require further collaborative, clinically grounded model development with robust validation, transparent reporting, and a focus on real-world deployment to translate predictive performance into improved patient outcomes.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024574891.
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.