Max E R Marsden, Zane B Perkins, Erhan Pisirir, William Marsh, Evangelia Kyrimi, Andrea Rossetto, Richard L Lyon, Anne Weaver, Ross Davenport, Nigel Rm Tai
{"title":"院前环境中创伤性凝血病风险预测机器学习系统的早期临床评估","authors":"Max E R Marsden, Zane B Perkins, Erhan Pisirir, William Marsh, Evangelia Kyrimi, Andrea Rossetto, Richard L Lyon, Anne Weaver, Ross Davenport, Nigel Rm Tai","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2024-214396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early intervention in patients with major traumatic injuries is critical. Decision support can improve clinicians' ability to identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a machine-learning (ML) decision support system to that of expert clinicians and to assess the ML system's impact on augmenting human risk prediction after injury in the prehospital phase of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This early clinical evaluation study compared a ML risk prediction system to expert clinicians in assessing a patient's risk of trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC). The study was conducted between 1 January 2019 and 31 June 2019 at two air ambulance sites in the south of England. The ML system used a Bayesian Network algorithm to predict TIC. Comparisons in predictive performance were made first between expert clinicians and the ML system and second, between expert clinicians and expert clinicians exposed to the ML system's outputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 51 expert clinicians were enrolled in the study and 184 patient assessments from 135 patients were analysed. The median age of included patients was 31 years old (IQR 23, 47), 75% were male and median Injury Severity Score 17 (IQR 9, 34). 62 patients (46%) received blood within 4 hours of injury and 26 patients (19%) developed TIC. The ML system did not outperform expert clinicians in discriminating between patients with and without TIC (area under the curve (AUC) ML: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.95) vs AUC clinician: 0.83 (95% CI 0.74, 0.92), p=0.330)). Calibration and overall accuracy of the ML system were superior. Expert clinicians' risk prediction, when augmented by the ML system, showed potential for improvement compared with unassisted human performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early after injury, an ML system performs well compared with expert prehospital clinicians in the prediction of TIC and blood transfusion. The study suggests that ML systems may augment clinical risk prediction in trauma.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early clinical evaluation of a machine-learning system for risk prediction of trauma-induced coagulopathy in the prehospital setting.\",\"authors\":\"Max E R Marsden, Zane B Perkins, Erhan Pisirir, William Marsh, Evangelia Kyrimi, Andrea Rossetto, Richard L Lyon, Anne Weaver, Ross Davenport, Nigel Rm Tai\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2024-214396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early intervention in patients with major traumatic injuries is critical. Decision support can improve clinicians' ability to identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a machine-learning (ML) decision support system to that of expert clinicians and to assess the ML system's impact on augmenting human risk prediction after injury in the prehospital phase of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This early clinical evaluation study compared a ML risk prediction system to expert clinicians in assessing a patient's risk of trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC). The study was conducted between 1 January 2019 and 31 June 2019 at two air ambulance sites in the south of England. The ML system used a Bayesian Network algorithm to predict TIC. Comparisons in predictive performance were made first between expert clinicians and the ML system and second, between expert clinicians and expert clinicians exposed to the ML system's outputs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 51 expert clinicians were enrolled in the study and 184 patient assessments from 135 patients were analysed. The median age of included patients was 31 years old (IQR 23, 47), 75% were male and median Injury Severity Score 17 (IQR 9, 34). 62 patients (46%) received blood within 4 hours of injury and 26 patients (19%) developed TIC. The ML system did not outperform expert clinicians in discriminating between patients with and without TIC (area under the curve (AUC) ML: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.95) vs AUC clinician: 0.83 (95% CI 0.74, 0.92), p=0.330)). Calibration and overall accuracy of the ML system were superior. Expert clinicians' risk prediction, when augmented by the ML system, showed potential for improvement compared with unassisted human performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early after injury, an ML system performs well compared with expert prehospital clinicians in the prediction of TIC and blood transfusion. The study suggests that ML systems may augment clinical risk prediction in trauma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214396\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2024-214396","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
摘要
背景:对重大创伤性损伤患者进行早期干预至关重要。决策支持可以提高临床医生识别高危患者的能力。本研究的目的是比较机器学习(ML)决策支持系统与专家临床医生的性能,并评估ML系统在院前护理阶段对增强损伤后人类风险预测的影响。方法:这项早期临床评估研究比较了ML风险预测系统与专家临床医生在评估患者创伤性凝血病(TIC)风险方面的差异。该研究于2019年1月1日至2019年6月31日在英格兰南部的两个空中救护点进行。机器学习系统使用贝叶斯网络算法来预测TIC。首先在专家临床医生和机器学习系统之间进行了预测性能的比较,其次在专家临床医生和接触机器学习系统输出的专家临床医生之间进行了比较。结果:总的来说,51名专家临床医生参加了这项研究,并分析了135名患者中的184名患者的评估。纳入患者的中位年龄为31岁(IQR 23,47), 75%为男性,中位损伤严重程度评分为17 (IQR 9,34)。62例(46%)在伤后4小时内接受输血,26例(19%)发生TIC。ML系统在区分TIC患者和非TIC患者方面没有优于专家临床医生(曲线下面积(AUC) ML: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.95) vs AUC临床医生:0.83 (95% CI 0.74, 0.92), p=0.330))。ML系统的校准和整体精度优越。专家临床医生的风险预测,在机器学习系统的增强下,与没有辅助的人类表现相比,显示出改善的潜力。结论:损伤后早期,与院前临床专家相比,ML系统在预测TIC和输血方面表现良好。该研究表明,ML系统可以增强创伤的临床风险预测。
Early clinical evaluation of a machine-learning system for risk prediction of trauma-induced coagulopathy in the prehospital setting.
Background: Early intervention in patients with major traumatic injuries is critical. Decision support can improve clinicians' ability to identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a machine-learning (ML) decision support system to that of expert clinicians and to assess the ML system's impact on augmenting human risk prediction after injury in the prehospital phase of care.
Methods: This early clinical evaluation study compared a ML risk prediction system to expert clinicians in assessing a patient's risk of trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC). The study was conducted between 1 January 2019 and 31 June 2019 at two air ambulance sites in the south of England. The ML system used a Bayesian Network algorithm to predict TIC. Comparisons in predictive performance were made first between expert clinicians and the ML system and second, between expert clinicians and expert clinicians exposed to the ML system's outputs.
Results: Overall, 51 expert clinicians were enrolled in the study and 184 patient assessments from 135 patients were analysed. The median age of included patients was 31 years old (IQR 23, 47), 75% were male and median Injury Severity Score 17 (IQR 9, 34). 62 patients (46%) received blood within 4 hours of injury and 26 patients (19%) developed TIC. The ML system did not outperform expert clinicians in discriminating between patients with and without TIC (area under the curve (AUC) ML: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79, 0.95) vs AUC clinician: 0.83 (95% CI 0.74, 0.92), p=0.330)). Calibration and overall accuracy of the ML system were superior. Expert clinicians' risk prediction, when augmented by the ML system, showed potential for improvement compared with unassisted human performance.
Conclusions: Early after injury, an ML system performs well compared with expert prehospital clinicians in the prediction of TIC and blood transfusion. The study suggests that ML systems may augment clinical risk prediction in trauma.
期刊介绍:
The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.