ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for patients with traumatic multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock using an Automated Machine Learning framework: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objective: To develop and validate a prognostic prediction model for patients with traumatic multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock using an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework, evaluating its predictive performance and clinical utility. Methods: A total of 1,028 patients with traumatic multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock admitted to the Emergency Departments and Intensive Care Units of seven public hospitals between January 2020 and December 2025 were retrospectively enrolled, with data from 4 hospitals designated as the training set ( Results: The IBBO algorithm demonstrated superior stability and outperformed the original BBO and comparative algorithms in most test functions. The AutoML model achieved best performance. The test set further confirmed its robustness, yielding a ROC-AUC of 0.9357 and PR-AUC of 0.9270. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the AutoML model's clinical net benefit surpassed that of traditional methods across a threshold range of 1-96%; The calibration curve likewise indicated high consistency between predicted probabilities and actual outcomes, with a Brier score as low as 0.110. SHAP analysis identified key predictors in descending order of importance: GCS score, ISS score, time from injury to ER admission, lactate, and fibrinogen. Conclusion: The IBBO-based AutoML prognostic model provides an efficient, accurate tool for in-hospital mortality prediction in traumatic multiple fractures with hemorrhagic shock. The model identified that core predictors-including GCS score, ISS score, time to ER admission, lactate, and fibrinogen-critically influence in-hospital mortality outcomes. Clinical decision support software derived from this model offers visual, intelligent guidance for stratified care, promising utility in trauma emergency practice.
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.