J Korean Med Sci.  2025 Apr;40(15):e51. 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e51.

Comparison of Trauma Mortality Prediction Models With Updated Survival Risk Ratios in Korea

• Kim J
• Heo YJ
• Kim Y

• KMID: 2567199
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e51

Abstract

Background
Despite the considerable disease burden due to trauma injury, sufficient effort has not been made for the assessment of nationwide trauma care status in Korea. We explored the feasibility of a diagnosis code-based injury severity measuring method in light of its realworld usage.
Methods
We used datasets from the National Emergency Department Information System to calculate the survival risk ratios (SRRs) and the Korean Trauma Data Bank to predict models, respectively. The target cohort was split into training and validation datasets using stratified random sampling in an 8:2 ratio. We established six major mortality prediction models depending on the included parameters: 1) the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) (age, sex, original Revised Trauma Score [RTS], Injury Severity Score [ISS]), 2) extended International Classification of Diseases-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) 1 (age, sex, original RTS, ICISS using international SRRs), 3) extended ICISS 2 (age, sex, original RTS, ICISS using Korean SRRs based on 4-digit diagnosis codes), 4) extended ICISS 3 (age, sex, original RTS, ICISS using Korean SRRs based on full-digit diagnosis codes), 5) extended ICISS 4 (age, sex, modified RTS, and ICISS using Korean SRRs based on 4-digit diagnosis codes), 6) extended ICISS 5 (age, sex, modified RTS, and ICISS using Korean SRRs based on full-digit diagnosis codes). We estimated the model using training datasets and fitted it to the validation datasets. We measured the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for discriminative ability. Overall performance was also evaluated using the Brier score.
Results
We observed the feasibility of the extended ICISS models, though their performance was slightly lower than the TRISS model (training cohort, AUC 0.936–0.938 vs. 0.949). Regarding SRR calculation methods, we did not find statistically significant differences. The alternative use of the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive Scale instead of the Glasgow Coma Scale in the RTS calculation did not degrade model performance.
Conclusion
The availability of the practical ICISS model was observed based on the model performance. We expect our ICISS model to contribute to strengthening the Korean Trauma Care System by utilizing mortality prediction and severity classification.

Keyword

Injuries; Injury Severity Score; Trauma Severity Indexes; Validity; Korea

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flow diagram of study cohort from Korean Trauma Data Bank.

• 

  Fig. 2 Comparison area under the curve estimates of models in training datasets.TRISS = trauma score and injury severity score, ICISS = International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity score.

Reference

1. Jung YS, Kim YE, Ock M, Yoon SJ. Measuring the burden of disease in Korea using disability-adjusted life years (2008-2020). J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(7):e67. PMID: 38412612.

2. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD results. Updated 2021. Accessed February 27, 2024. https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/ .

3. de Munter L, Polinder S, Lansink KW, Cnossen MC, Steyerberg EW, de Jongh MA. Mortality prediction models in the general trauma population: a systematic review. Injury. 2017; 48(2):221–229. PMID: 28011072.

4. Osler TM, Glance LG, Cook A, Buzas JS, Hosmer DW. A trauma mortality prediction model based on the ICD-10-CM lexicon: TMPM-ICD10. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019; 86(5):891–895. PMID: 30633101.

5. Kim Y, Jung KY, Kim CY, Kim YI, Shin Y. Validation of the International Classification of Diseases 10th edition-based injury severity score (ICISS). J Trauma. 2000; 48(2):280–285. PMID: 10697087.

6. Nakahara S, Yokota J. Revision of the International Classification of Diseases to include standardized descriptions of multiple injuries and injury severity. Bull World Health Organ. 2011; 89(3):238–240. PMID: 21379422.

7. Gedeborg R, Warner M, Chen LH, Gulliver P, Cryer C, Robitaille Y, et al. Internationally comparable diagnosis-specific survival probabilities for calculation of the ICD-10-based injury severity score. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014; 76(2):358–365. PMID: 24398769.

8. Filippatos G, Tsironi M, Zyga S, Andriopoulos P. External validation of International Classification of injury severity score to predict mortality in a Greek adult trauma population. Injury. 2022; 53(1):4–10. PMID: 34657750.

9. Kim KH. Predictors of 30-day mortality and 90-day functional recovery after primary intracerebral hemorrhage: hospital based multivariate analysis in 585 patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009; 45(6):341–349. PMID: 19609417.

10. Kim Y, Jung KY. Utility of the international classification of diseases injury severity score: detecting preventable deaths and comparing the performance of emergency medical centers. J Trauma. 2003; 54(4):775–780. PMID: 12707543.

11. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology. 2010; 21(1):128–138. PMID: 20010215.

12. Cook DA. Methods to assess performance of models estimating risk of death in intensive care patients: a review. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2006; 34(2):164–175. PMID: 16617636.

13. Gagné M, Moore L, Beaudoin C, Batomen Kuimi BL, Sirois MJ. Performance of International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity measures used to predict in-hospital mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016; 80(3):419–426. PMID: 26713976.

14. Berecki-Gisolf J, Tharanga Fernando D, D’Elia A. International classification of disease based injury severity score (ICISS): a data linkage study of hospital and death data in Victoria, Australia. Injury. 2022; 53(3):904–911. PMID: 35058065.

15. Cho KW, Hwang SY, Bae SM. Comparison of triage score and triage-revised trauma score for triage in emergent trauma patients. J Korean Soc Emerg Med. 2001; 12(3):230–242.

16. Janagama SR, Newberry JA, Kohn MA, Rao GV, Strehlow MC, Mahadevan SV. Is AVPU comparable to GCS in critical prehospital decisions? - a cross-sectional study. Am J Emerg Med. 2022; 59:106–110. PMID: 35820277.

17. Pape M, Giannakópoulos GF, Zuidema WP, de Lange-Klerk ES, Toor EJ, Edwards MJ, et al. Is there an association between female gender and outcome in severe trauma? a multi-center analysis in the Netherlands. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019; 27(1):16. PMID: 30760289.

18. Iezzoni L. Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. 4th ed. Chicago, IL, USA: Health Administration Press;2013.

19. Gabbe BJ, Magtengaard K, Hannaford AP, Cameron PA. Is the Charlson comorbidity index useful for predicting trauma outcomes? Acad Emerg Med. 2005; 12(4):318–321. PMID: 15805322.

20. Bouamra O, Jacques R, Edwards A, Yates DW, Lawrence T, Jenks T, et al. Prediction modelling for trauma using comorbidity and ‘true’ 30-day outcome. Emerg Med J. 2015; 32(12):933–938. PMID: 26493123.

21. Kim J, Shin SD, Im TH, Lee KJ, Ko SB, Park JO, et al. Development and validation of the excess mortality ratio-adjusted injury severity score using the International Classification of Diseases 10th edition. Acad Emerg Med. 2009; 16(5):454–464. PMID: 19388920.

22. Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Topic Group ‘Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models’ of the STRATOS initiative. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med. 2019; 17(1):230. PMID: 31842878.

23. Nattino G, Pennell ML, Lemeshow S. Assessing the goodness of fit of logistic regression models in large samples: a modification of the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Biometrics. 2020; 76(2):549–560. PMID: 32134502.

24. Madley-Dowd P, Hughes R, Tilling K, Heron J. The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 110:63–73. PMID: 30878639.

25. Joseph R, Sim J, Ogollah R, Lewis M. A systematic review finds variable use of the intention-to-treat principle in musculoskeletal randomized controlled trials with missing data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(1):15–24. PMID: 25304501.

26. Shivasabesan G, Mitra B, O’Reilly GM. Missing data in trauma registries: a systematic review. Injury. 2018; 49(9):1641–1647. PMID: 29678306.

27. Higgins JP, White IR, Wood AM. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2008; 5(3):225–239. PMID: 18559412.

28. Richter S, Stevenson S, Newman T, Wilson L, Menon DK, Maas AI, et al. Handling of missing outcome data in traumatic brain injury research: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma. 2019; 36(19):2743–2752. PMID: 31062649.