OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of real-time mortality risk assessment for ICU patients. DESIGN/ METHODS: This study used retrospective analysis of mixed medical/surgical intensive care patients in a university hospital. Logistic regression was applied to 7048 development patients with several hundred candidate variables. Final models were selected by backward elimination on top cross-validated variables and validated on 3018 separate patients. RESULTS: The real-time model demonstrated strong discrimination ability (Day 3 AUC=0.878). All models had circumstances where calibration was poor (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test p < 0.1). The final models included variables known to be associated with mortality, but also more computationally intensive variables absent in other severity scores. CONCLUSION: Real-time mortality prediction offers similar discrimination ability to daily models. Moreover, the discrimination of our real-time model performed favorably to a customized SAPS II (Day 3 AUC=0.878 vs AUC=0.849, p < 0.05) but generally had worse calibration.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of real-time mortality risk assessment for ICU patients. DESIGN/ METHODS: This study used retrospective analysis of mixed medical/surgical intensive care patients in a university hospital. Logistic regression was applied to 7048 development patients with several hundred candidate variables. Final models were selected by backward elimination on top cross-validated variables and validated on 3018 separate patients. RESULTS: The real-time model demonstrated strong discrimination ability (Day 3 AUC=0.878). All models had circumstances where calibration was poor (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test p < 0.1). The final models included variables known to be associated with mortality, but also more computationally intensive variables absent in other severity scores. CONCLUSION: Real-time mortality prediction offers similar discrimination ability to daily models. Moreover, the discrimination of our real-time model performed favorably to a customized SAPS II (Day 3 AUC=0.878 vs AUC=0.849, p < 0.05) but generally had worse calibration.
Authors: J F Timsit; J P Fosse; G Troché; A De Lassence; C Alberti; M Garrouste-Orgeas; E Azoulay; S Chevret; P Moine; Y Cohen Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: W A Knaus; D P Wagner; E A Draper; J E Zimmerman; M Bergner; P G Bastos; C A Sirio; D J Murphy; T Lotring; A Damiano Journal: Chest Date: 1991-12 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Marzyeh Ghassemi; Marco A F Pimentel; Tristan Naumann; Thomas Brennan; David A Clifton; Peter Szolovits; Mengling Feng Journal: Proc Conf AAAI Artif Intell Date: 2015-01
Authors: Mike Wu; Marzyeh Ghassemi; Mengling Feng; Leo A Celi; Peter Szolovits; Finale Doshi-Velez Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Melissa D Aczon; David R Ledbetter; Eugene Laksana; Long V Ho; Randall C Wetzel Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.971