Enhancing geriatric trauma mortality prediction: Modifying and assessing the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score with net benefit and decision curve analysis.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1111/acem.15103
Pawan Acharya, Tabitha Garwe, Sara K Vesely, Amanda Janitz, Jennifer D Peck, Alisa M Cross
{"title":"Enhancing geriatric trauma mortality prediction: Modifying and assessing the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score with net benefit and decision curve analysis.","authors":"Pawan Acharya, Tabitha Garwe, Sara K Vesely, Amanda Janitz, Jennifer D Peck, Alisa M Cross","doi":"10.1111/acem.15103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Calibration and discrimination indicators alone are insufficient for evaluating the clinical usefulness of prediction models, as they do not account for the cost of misclassification errors. This study aimed to modify the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and assess the clinical utility of the modified model using net benefit (NB) and decision curve analysis (DCA) for predicting in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) 2017 was used to identify geriatric trauma patients (≥ 65 years) treated at Level I trauma centers. The outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The GTOS was modified to include additional patient, injury, and treatment characteristics identified through machine learning methods, focusing on early risk stratification. Calibration and discrimination indicators, along with NB and DCA, were utilized for evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 67,222 admitted geriatric trauma patients, 5.6% died in the hospital. The modified GTOS score included the following variables with associated weights: initial airway intervention (5), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤13 (5), packed red blood cell transfusion within 24 h (3), penetrating injury (2), age ≥ 75 years (2), preexisting comorbidity (1), and torso injury (1), with a total range from 0 to 19. The modified GTOS demonstrated a significantly higher area under the curve (0.92 vs. 0.84, p < 0.0001), lower misclassification error (4.9% vs. 5.2%), and lower Brier score (0.036 vs. 0.042) compared to the original GTOS. DCA showed that using the modified GTOS for predicting in-hospital mortality resulted in higher NB than treating all, treating none, and treating based on the original GTOS across a wide range of clinician preferences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The modified GTOS model exhibited superior predictive ability and clinical utility compared to the original GTOS. NB and DCA offer valuable complementary methods to calibration and discrimination indicators, comprehensively evaluating the clinical usefulness of prediction models and decision strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"668-680"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171684/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15103","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Calibration and discrimination indicators alone are insufficient for evaluating the clinical usefulness of prediction models, as they do not account for the cost of misclassification errors. This study aimed to modify the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and assess the clinical utility of the modified model using net benefit (NB) and decision curve analysis (DCA) for predicting in-hospital mortality.

Methods: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) 2017 was used to identify geriatric trauma patients (≥ 65 years) treated at Level I trauma centers. The outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The GTOS was modified to include additional patient, injury, and treatment characteristics identified through machine learning methods, focusing on early risk stratification. Calibration and discrimination indicators, along with NB and DCA, were utilized for evaluation.

Results: Of the 67,222 admitted geriatric trauma patients, 5.6% died in the hospital. The modified GTOS score included the following variables with associated weights: initial airway intervention (5), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤13 (5), packed red blood cell transfusion within 24 h (3), penetrating injury (2), age ≥ 75 years (2), preexisting comorbidity (1), and torso injury (1), with a total range from 0 to 19. The modified GTOS demonstrated a significantly higher area under the curve (0.92 vs. 0.84, p < 0.0001), lower misclassification error (4.9% vs. 5.2%), and lower Brier score (0.036 vs. 0.042) compared to the original GTOS. DCA showed that using the modified GTOS for predicting in-hospital mortality resulted in higher NB than treating all, treating none, and treating based on the original GTOS across a wide range of clinician preferences.

Conclusions: The modified GTOS model exhibited superior predictive ability and clinical utility compared to the original GTOS. NB and DCA offer valuable complementary methods to calibration and discrimination indicators, comprehensively evaluating the clinical usefulness of prediction models and decision strategies.

加强老年创伤死亡率预测:用净收益和决策曲线分析修改和评估老年创伤结局评分。
目的:单独的校准和区分指标不足以评估预测模型的临床有用性,因为它们不能考虑误分类错误的成本。本研究旨在修改老年创伤结局评分(GTOS),并利用净收益(NB)和决策曲线分析(DCA)评估修改后的模型在预测住院死亡率方面的临床应用。方法:采用2017年创伤质量改进计划(TQIP)对在一级创伤中心治疗的老年创伤患者(≥65岁)进行识别。我们关注的结果是住院死亡率。对GTOS进行了修改,纳入了通过机器学习方法确定的其他患者、损伤和治疗特征,重点关注早期风险分层。采用校准和判别指标以及NB和DCA进行评价。结果:67222例住院老年外伤患者中,5.6%在医院死亡。修改后的GTOS评分包括以下变量及其相关权重:初始气道干预(5),格拉斯哥昏迷量表≤13(5),24小时内填充红细胞输注(3),穿透性损伤(2),年龄≥75岁(2),既往合并症(1)和躯干损伤(1),总范围为0至19。改进后的GTOS模型曲线下面积显著增大(0.92 vs 0.84, p)。结论:改进后的GTOS模型与原始GTOS相比,具有更好的预测能力和临床应用价值。NB和DCA为校准和区分指标提供了有价值的补充方法,全面评估了预测模型和决策策略的临床实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信