Back

Representing Injuries in Trauma Patients: Development and Evaluation of Embeddings for Injuries

Szolnoky, K.; Attergrim, J.; Ashfaq, A.; Linusson, H.; Gerdin Wärnberg, M.; Berg, J.

2026-01-06 emergency medicine
10.64898/2026.01.03.26343379 medRxiv
Show abstract

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSTrauma patients present with heterogeneous injury patterns that are challenging to represent in statistical models. Traditional approaches either use high-dimensional one-hot encoding, resulting in sparse features, or aggregate injuries into summary scores that lose patient-specific detail. This study developed data-driven ICD-10 embeddings for trauma injuries and evaluated their ability to preserve injury information. MethodsUsing the National Trauma Data Bank, we trained autoencoder models on all trauma patients from 2018 to generate dense vector representations of ICD-10 injury codes. We evaluated embeddings of dimensions 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 against one-hot encoding using three prediction tasks: in-hospital mortality, emergency department disposition, and blood transfusion within 24 hours. For each hospital included, we trained separate logistic regression and LightGBM models using 2018 data from that hospital, then evaluated performance on 2019 data from the same hospital. Performance was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and stratified by hospital size. ResultsIn LightGBM models, 8-dimensional embeddings improved AUC compared to one-hot encoding of 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.10) in small hospitals, 0.03 (0.02, 0.04) in medium hospitals, and 0.02 (0.01, 0.02) in large hospitals, with comparable performance in major hospitals (0.00 [-0.01, 0.01]). In logistic regression, 32-dimensional embeddings showed AUC improvements of 0.03 (0.01, 0.05), 0.02 (0.01, 0.03), and 0.02 (0.02, 0.03) for small, medium, and large hospitals respectively, with similar performance in major hospitals (0.01 [0.00, 0.01]). ConclusionICD-10 code injury embeddings with [≥]8 dimensions preserve clinically relevant information and can outperform one-hot encoding while reducing dimensionality. The embeddings and software are openly available to support further trauma research and applications.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.