The Experts below are selected from a list of 336321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Nick Gibson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p
-
comparisons of the outcome Prediction Performance of injury severity scoring tools using the abbreviated injury scale 90 update 98 ais 98 and 2005 update 2008 ais 2008
Annals of advances in automotive medicine Annual Scientific Conference ... Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.
Hideo Tohira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p
-
comparisons of the outcome Prediction Performance of injury severity scoring tools using the abbreviated injury scale 90 update 98 ais 98 and 2005 update 2008 ais 2008
Annals of advances in automotive medicine Annual Scientific Conference ... Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.
Jinfeng Wang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparative analysis of surface water quality Prediction Performance and identification of key water parameters using different machine learning models based on big data.
Water research, 2019Co-Authors: Kangyang Chen, Hexia Chen, Chuanlong Zhou, Yichao Huang, Ruqin Shen, Fengrui Liu, Min Zuo, Xinyi Zou, Jinfeng WangAbstract:The water quality Prediction Performance of machine learning models may be not only dependent on the models, but also dependent on the parameters in data set chosen for training the learning models. Moreover, the key water parameters should also be identified by the learning models, in order to further reduce Prediction costs and improve Prediction efficiency. Here we endeavored for the first time to compare the water quality Prediction Performance of 10 learning models (7 traditional and 3 ensemble models) using big data (33,612 observations) from the major rivers and lakes in China from 2012 to 2018, based on the precision, recall, F1-score, weighted F1-score, and explore the potential key water parameters for future model Prediction. Our results showed that the bigger data could improve the Performance of learning models in Prediction of water quality. Compared to other 7 models, decision tree (DT), random forest (RF) and deep cascade forest (DCF) trained by data sets of pH, DO, CODMn, and NH3-N had significantly better Performance in Prediction of all 6 Levels of water quality recommended by Chinese government. Moreover, two key water parameter sets (DO, CODMn, and NH3-N; CODMn, and NH3-N) were identified and validated by DT, RF and DCF to be high specificities for perdition water quality. Therefore, DT, RF and DCF with selected key water parameters could be prioritized for future water quality monitoring and providing timely water quality warning.
Ian Jacobs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p
-
comparisons of the outcome Prediction Performance of injury severity scoring tools using the abbreviated injury scale 90 update 98 ais 98 and 2005 update 2008 ais 2008
Annals of advances in automotive medicine Annual Scientific Conference ... Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.
David Mountain - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p
-
comparisons of the outcome Prediction Performance of injury severity scoring tools using the abbreviated injury scale 90 update 98 ais 98 and 2005 update 2008 ais 2008
Annals of advances in automotive medicine Annual Scientific Conference ... Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the, 2011Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick GibsonAbstract:The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome Prediction Performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a Performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (complete dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a complete dataset and a whole dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.
