Statistical machines for trauma hospital outcomes research: Application to the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study

Sara E. Moore, Anna Decker, Alan Hubbard, Rachael A. Callcut, Erin E. Fox, Deborah J. Del Junco, John B. Holcomb, Mohammad H. Rahbar, Charles E. Wade, Martin A. Schreiber, Louis H. Alarcon, Karen J. Brasel, Eileen M. Bulger, Bryan A. Cotton, Peter Muskat, John G. Myers, Herb A. Phelan, Mitchell J. Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Improving the treatment of trauma, a leading cause of death worldwide, is of great clinical and public health interest. This analysis introduces flexible statistical methods for estimating center-level effects on individual outcomes in the context of highly variable patient populations, such as those of the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major Trauma Transfusion study. Ten US level I trauma centers enrolled a total of 1,245 trauma patients who survived at least 30 minutes after admission and received at least one unit of red blood cells. Outcomes included death, multiple organ failure, substantial bleeding, and transfusion of blood products. The centers involved were classified as either large or small-volume based on the number of massive transfusion patients enrolled during the study period. We focused on estimation of parameters inspired by causal inference, specifically estimated impacts on patient outcomes related to the volume of the trauma hospital that treated them. We defined this association as the change in mean outcomes of interest that would be observed if, contrary to fact, subjects from large-volume sites were treated at small-volume sites (the effect of treatment among the treated). We estimated this parameter using three different methods, some of which use data-adaptive machine learning tools to derive the outcome models, minimizing residual confounding by reducing model misspecification. Differences between unadjusted and adjusted estimators sometimes differed dramatically, demonstrating the need to account for differences in patient characteristics in clinic comparisons. In addition, the estimators based on robust adjustment methods showed potential impacts of hospital volume. For instance, we estimated a survival benefit for patients who were treated at large-volume sites, which was not apparent in simpler, unadjusted comparisons. By removing arbitrary modeling decisions from the estimation process and concentrating on parameters that have more direct policy implications, these potentially automated approaches allow methodological standardization across similar comparativeness effectiveness studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0136438
JournalPLoS One
Volume10
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 21 2015

Fingerprint

Trauma Centers
Blood
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Wounds and Injuries
Public health
Standardization
Learning systems
Statistical methods
Cells
death
blood transfusion
Multiple Organ Failure
Decision Support Techniques
artificial intelligence
concentrating
standardization
Blood Transfusion
hemorrhage
Cause of Death
public health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Statistical machines for trauma hospital outcomes research : Application to the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study. / Moore, Sara E.; Decker, Anna; Hubbard, Alan; Callcut, Rachael A.; Fox, Erin E.; Del Junco, Deborah J.; Holcomb, John B.; Rahbar, Mohammad H.; Wade, Charles E.; Schreiber, Martin A.; Alarcon, Louis H.; Brasel, Karen J.; Bulger, Eileen M.; Cotton, Bryan A.; Muskat, Peter; Myers, John G.; Phelan, Herb A.; Cohen, Mitchell J.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 10, No. 8, e0136438, 21.08.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moore, SE, Decker, A, Hubbard, A, Callcut, RA, Fox, EE, Del Junco, DJ, Holcomb, JB, Rahbar, MH, Wade, CE, Schreiber, MA, Alarcon, LH, Brasel, KJ, Bulger, EM, Cotton, BA, Muskat, P, Myers, JG, Phelan, HA & Cohen, MJ 2015, 'Statistical machines for trauma hospital outcomes research: Application to the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study', PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 8, e0136438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136438
Moore, Sara E. ; Decker, Anna ; Hubbard, Alan ; Callcut, Rachael A. ; Fox, Erin E. ; Del Junco, Deborah J. ; Holcomb, John B. ; Rahbar, Mohammad H. ; Wade, Charles E. ; Schreiber, Martin A. ; Alarcon, Louis H. ; Brasel, Karen J. ; Bulger, Eileen M. ; Cotton, Bryan A. ; Muskat, Peter ; Myers, John G. ; Phelan, Herb A. ; Cohen, Mitchell J. / Statistical machines for trauma hospital outcomes research : Application to the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study. In: PLoS One. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 8.
@article{7d8fd0eb00ba4adcbd39bf75cf57ab18,
title = "Statistical machines for trauma hospital outcomes research: Application to the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study",
abstract = "Improving the treatment of trauma, a leading cause of death worldwide, is of great clinical and public health interest. This analysis introduces flexible statistical methods for estimating center-level effects on individual outcomes in the context of highly variable patient populations, such as those of the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major Trauma Transfusion study. Ten US level I trauma centers enrolled a total of 1,245 trauma patients who survived at least 30 minutes after admission and received at least one unit of red blood cells. Outcomes included death, multiple organ failure, substantial bleeding, and transfusion of blood products. The centers involved were classified as either large or small-volume based on the number of massive transfusion patients enrolled during the study period. We focused on estimation of parameters inspired by causal inference, specifically estimated impacts on patient outcomes related to the volume of the trauma hospital that treated them. We defined this association as the change in mean outcomes of interest that would be observed if, contrary to fact, subjects from large-volume sites were treated at small-volume sites (the effect of treatment among the treated). We estimated this parameter using three different methods, some of which use data-adaptive machine learning tools to derive the outcome models, minimizing residual confounding by reducing model misspecification. Differences between unadjusted and adjusted estimators sometimes differed dramatically, demonstrating the need to account for differences in patient characteristics in clinic comparisons. In addition, the estimators based on robust adjustment methods showed potential impacts of hospital volume. For instance, we estimated a survival benefit for patients who were treated at large-volume sites, which was not apparent in simpler, unadjusted comparisons. By removing arbitrary modeling decisions from the estimation process and concentrating on parameters that have more direct policy implications, these potentially automated approaches allow methodological standardization across similar comparativeness effectiveness studies.",
author = "Moore, {Sara E.} and Anna Decker and Alan Hubbard and Callcut, {Rachael A.} and Fox, {Erin E.} and {Del Junco}, {Deborah J.} and Holcomb, {John B.} and Rahbar, {Mohammad H.} and Wade, {Charles E.} and Schreiber, {Martin A.} and Alarcon, {Louis H.} and Brasel, {Karen J.} and Bulger, {Eileen M.} and Cotton, {Bryan A.} and Peter Muskat and Myers, {John G.} and Phelan, {Herb A.} and Cohen, {Mitchell J.}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0136438",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Statistical machines for trauma hospital outcomes research

T2 - Application to the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study

AU - Moore, Sara E.

AU - Decker, Anna

AU - Hubbard, Alan

AU - Callcut, Rachael A.

AU - Fox, Erin E.

AU - Del Junco, Deborah J.

AU - Holcomb, John B.

AU - Rahbar, Mohammad H.

AU - Wade, Charles E.

AU - Schreiber, Martin A.

AU - Alarcon, Louis H.

AU - Brasel, Karen J.

AU - Bulger, Eileen M.

AU - Cotton, Bryan A.

AU - Muskat, Peter

AU - Myers, John G.

AU - Phelan, Herb A.

AU - Cohen, Mitchell J.

PY - 2015/8/21

Y1 - 2015/8/21

N2 - Improving the treatment of trauma, a leading cause of death worldwide, is of great clinical and public health interest. This analysis introduces flexible statistical methods for estimating center-level effects on individual outcomes in the context of highly variable patient populations, such as those of the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major Trauma Transfusion study. Ten US level I trauma centers enrolled a total of 1,245 trauma patients who survived at least 30 minutes after admission and received at least one unit of red blood cells. Outcomes included death, multiple organ failure, substantial bleeding, and transfusion of blood products. The centers involved were classified as either large or small-volume based on the number of massive transfusion patients enrolled during the study period. We focused on estimation of parameters inspired by causal inference, specifically estimated impacts on patient outcomes related to the volume of the trauma hospital that treated them. We defined this association as the change in mean outcomes of interest that would be observed if, contrary to fact, subjects from large-volume sites were treated at small-volume sites (the effect of treatment among the treated). We estimated this parameter using three different methods, some of which use data-adaptive machine learning tools to derive the outcome models, minimizing residual confounding by reducing model misspecification. Differences between unadjusted and adjusted estimators sometimes differed dramatically, demonstrating the need to account for differences in patient characteristics in clinic comparisons. In addition, the estimators based on robust adjustment methods showed potential impacts of hospital volume. For instance, we estimated a survival benefit for patients who were treated at large-volume sites, which was not apparent in simpler, unadjusted comparisons. By removing arbitrary modeling decisions from the estimation process and concentrating on parameters that have more direct policy implications, these potentially automated approaches allow methodological standardization across similar comparativeness effectiveness studies.

AB - Improving the treatment of trauma, a leading cause of death worldwide, is of great clinical and public health interest. This analysis introduces flexible statistical methods for estimating center-level effects on individual outcomes in the context of highly variable patient populations, such as those of the PRospective, Observational, Multi-center Major Trauma Transfusion study. Ten US level I trauma centers enrolled a total of 1,245 trauma patients who survived at least 30 minutes after admission and received at least one unit of red blood cells. Outcomes included death, multiple organ failure, substantial bleeding, and transfusion of blood products. The centers involved were classified as either large or small-volume based on the number of massive transfusion patients enrolled during the study period. We focused on estimation of parameters inspired by causal inference, specifically estimated impacts on patient outcomes related to the volume of the trauma hospital that treated them. We defined this association as the change in mean outcomes of interest that would be observed if, contrary to fact, subjects from large-volume sites were treated at small-volume sites (the effect of treatment among the treated). We estimated this parameter using three different methods, some of which use data-adaptive machine learning tools to derive the outcome models, minimizing residual confounding by reducing model misspecification. Differences between unadjusted and adjusted estimators sometimes differed dramatically, demonstrating the need to account for differences in patient characteristics in clinic comparisons. In addition, the estimators based on robust adjustment methods showed potential impacts of hospital volume. For instance, we estimated a survival benefit for patients who were treated at large-volume sites, which was not apparent in simpler, unadjusted comparisons. By removing arbitrary modeling decisions from the estimation process and concentrating on parameters that have more direct policy implications, these potentially automated approaches allow methodological standardization across similar comparativeness effectiveness studies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942844049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942844049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0136438

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0136438

M3 - Article

C2 - 26296088

AN - SCOPUS:84942844049

VL - 10

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 8

M1 - e0136438

ER -