Search

Background: Though artificial intelligence ("AI") has been increasingly applied to patient care, many of these predictive models are retrospective and not readily available for real-time decision-making. This survey-based study aims to evaluate implementation of a new, validated mortality risk calculator (Parkland Trauma Index of Mortality, "PTIM") embedded in our electronic healthrecord ("EHR") that calculates hourly predictions of mortality with high sensitivity and specificity. Methods: This is a prospective, survey-based study performed at a level 1 trauma center. An anonymous survey was sent to surgical providers and regarding PTIM implementation. The PTIM score evaluates 23 variables including Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), vital signs, and laboratory data. Results: Of the 40 completed surveys, 35 reported using PTIM in decision-making. Prior to reviewing PTIM, providers identified perceived top 3 predictors of mortality, including GCS (22/38, 58%), age (18/35, 47%), and maximum heart rate (17/35, 45%). Most providers reported the PTIM assisted their treatment decisions (27/35, 77%) and timing of operative intervention (23/35, 66%). Many providers agreed that PTIM integrated into rounds and patient assessment (22/36, 61%) and that it improved efficiency in assessing patients' potential mortality (21/36, 58%). Conclusions: Artificial intelligence algorithms are mostly retrospective and lag in real-time prediction of mortality. To our knowledge, this is the first real-time, automated algorithm predicting mortality in trauma patients. In this small survey-based study, we found PTIM assists in decision-making, timing of intervention, and improves accuracy in assessing mortality. Next steps include evaluating the short- and long-term impact on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Parkland Trauma Index of Mortality (PTIM) is an integrated, machine learning 72-h mortality prediction model that automatically extracts and analyzes demographic, laboratory, and physiological data in polytrauma patients. We hypothesized that this validated model would perform equally as well at another level 1 trauma center., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed including ∼5000 adult level 1 trauma activation patients from January 2022 to September 2023. Demographics, physiologic and laboratory values were collected. First, a test set of models using PTIM clinical variables (CVs) was used as external validation, named PTIM+. Then, multiple novel mortality prediction models were developed considering all CVs designated as the Cincinnati Trauma Index of Mortality (CTIM). The statistical performance of the models was then compared., Results: PTIM CVs were found to have similar predictive performance within the PTIM + external validation model. The highest correlating CVs used in CTIM overlapped considerably with those of the PTIM, and performance was comparable between models. Specifically, for prediction of mortality within 48 h (CTIM versus PTIM): positive prediction value was 35.6% versus 32.5%, negative prediction value was 99.6% versus 99.3%, sensitivity was 81.0% versus 82.5%, specificity was 97.3% versus 93.6%, and area under the curve was 0.98 versus 0.94., Conclusions: This external cohort study suggests that the variables initially identified via PTIM retain their predictive ability and are accessible in a different level 1 trauma center. This work shows that a trauma center may be able to operationalize an effective predictive model without undertaking a repeated time and resource intensive process of full variable selection., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)