Enhancing trauma triage in low-resource settings using machine learning: a performance comparison with the Kampala Trauma Score.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Mike Nsubuga, Timothy Mwanje Kintu, Helen Please, Kelsey Stewart, Sergio M Navarro
{"title":"Enhancing trauma triage in low-resource settings using machine learning: a performance comparison with the Kampala Trauma Score.","authors":"Mike Nsubuga, Timothy Mwanje Kintu, Helen Please, Kelsey Stewart, Sergio M Navarro","doi":"10.1186/s12873-025-01175-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traumatic injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with a disproportionate impact on populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) is frequently used for triage in these settings, though its predictive accuracy remains under debate. This study evaluates the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) models in predicting triage decisions and compares their performance to the KTS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 4,109 trauma patients at Soroti Regional Referral Hospital, a rural hospital in Uganda, were used to train and evaluate four ML models: Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). The models were assessed in regard to accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC (Area Under the Curve of the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve). Additionally, a multinomial logistic regression model using the KTS was developed as a benchmark for the ML models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All four ML models outperformed the KTS model, with the RF and GB both achieving AUC-ROC values of 0.91, compared to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.61-0.63) for the KTS (p < 0.01). The RF model demonstrated the highest accuracy at 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68-0.70), while the KTS-based model showed an accuracy of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.55). Sex, hours to hospital, and age were identified as the most significant predictors in both ML models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ML models demonstrated superior predictive capabilities over the KTS in predicting triage decisions, even when utilising a limited set of injury information about the patients. These findings suggest a promising opportunity to advance trauma care in LMICs by integrating ML into triage decision-making. By leveraging basic demographic and clinical data, these models could provide a foundation for improved resource allocation and patient outcomes, addressing the unique challenges of resource-limited settings. However, further validation is essential to ensure their reliability and integration into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01175-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traumatic injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with a disproportionate impact on populations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Kampala Trauma Score (KTS) is frequently used for triage in these settings, though its predictive accuracy remains under debate. This study evaluates the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) models in predicting triage decisions and compares their performance to the KTS.

Methods: Data from 4,109 trauma patients at Soroti Regional Referral Hospital, a rural hospital in Uganda, were used to train and evaluate four ML models: Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). The models were assessed in regard to accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC (Area Under the Curve of the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve). Additionally, a multinomial logistic regression model using the KTS was developed as a benchmark for the ML models.

Results: All four ML models outperformed the KTS model, with the RF and GB both achieving AUC-ROC values of 0.91, compared to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.61-0.63) for the KTS (p < 0.01). The RF model demonstrated the highest accuracy at 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68-0.70), while the KTS-based model showed an accuracy of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.55). Sex, hours to hospital, and age were identified as the most significant predictors in both ML models.

Conclusion: ML models demonstrated superior predictive capabilities over the KTS in predicting triage decisions, even when utilising a limited set of injury information about the patients. These findings suggest a promising opportunity to advance trauma care in LMICs by integrating ML into triage decision-making. By leveraging basic demographic and clinical data, these models could provide a foundation for improved resource allocation and patient outcomes, addressing the unique challenges of resource-limited settings. However, further validation is essential to ensure their reliability and integration into clinical practice.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信