Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pooling multi-source administrative crash data may introduce predictive information from differences in inclusion rules, injury coding, and field coverage. This study quantifies database-source and crash-scenario contributions to fatal-outcome prediction across eight Chinese sources with reconstructable outcomes. Nine datasets contained 50,139 records; Hunan was retained for data-quality and descriptive analyses but could not support fatal-outcome reconstruction. Of 19,776 casualty crashes with reconstructable outcomes, 17,866 earlier-year records formed the development set, and 1821 records in total from the most recent eligible year of each source formed the pooled test set. A baseline assigning each source’s development-period fatality proportion had no within-source ranking ability, yet achieved a pooled ROC-AUC of 0.720 and an average precision of 0.494, indicating substantial between-source variation. The two-seed CatBoost ensemble increased ROC-AUC by 0.059 to 0.779 (95% CI 0.756–0.800) and average precision by 0.124 to 0.619 (0.578–0.661); the Brier score was 0.178 and scaled Brier skill score was 0.201. Removing the crash-cause field produced an ROC-AUC of 0.781 and an average precision of 0.610, with no clear paired performance difference. Source-specific performance differences were marked: the equal-weight macro-average ROC-AUC was only 0.628, and Jiangxi showed no clear evidence of within-source discrimination (0.479, 95% CI 0.359–0.599). SHAP and adjusted regression supported stable associations of pedestrian collisions and rollover/run-off-road crashes with fatality, while pooled calibration varied by source. Pooled metrics should be interpreted as performance comparisons within this assembled collection, not as a literal decomposition or proof of a shared crash-severity mechanism; reporting should include source-proportion baselines, within-source metrics, source-level calibration, and sensitivity analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: