Shufang Zhang1, Kai Zhang2, Yang Yu2, Baoping Tian2, Wei Cui2, Gensheng Zhang2. 1. a Department of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital , Zhejiang University School of Medicine , Hangzhou , Zhejiang , PR China. 2. b Department of Critical Care Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital , Zhejiang University School of Medicine , Hangzhou , Zhejiang , PR China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a new scoring index based on decision-tree analysis to predict clinical outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Data of 3519 ICU patients with CAP were obtained from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC III) 2001-2012 database and analysed between 30-d survivors and non-survivors. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the new decision tree model were compared with those of CURB-65 and SOAR. RESULTS: The newly developed classification and regression tree (CART) model identified coexisting illnesses as the most important single discriminating factor between survivors and non-survivors. The CART model area under the curve (AUC) 0.661 was superior to that of CURB-65 (0.609) and SOAR (0.589). CART sensitivity was 73.4%, and specificity 49.0%. CURB-65 and SOAR sensitivity for predicting 30-d mortality were 74.5 and 80.7%, and specificity was 42.3 and 33.9%, respectively. After smoothing, the CART model had higher sensitivity and specificity than both CURB-65 and SOAR. CONCLUSIONS: The new CART prediction model has higher specificity and better receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves than CURB-65 and SOAR score indices although its accuracy and sensitivity are only moderately better than the other systems. Key messages The new CART prediction model has higher specificity and better ROC curves than CURB-65 and SOAR score indices. However, accuracy and sensitivity of the new CART prediction model are only moderately better than the other systems in predicting 30-day mortality in CAP patients.
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a new scoring index based on decision-tree analysis to predict clinical outcomes of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Data of 3519 ICU patients with CAP were obtained from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC III) 2001-2012 database and analysed between 30-d survivors and non-survivors. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the new decision tree model were compared with those of CURB-65 and SOAR. RESULTS: The newly developed classification and regression tree (CART) model identified coexisting illnesses as the most important single discriminating factor between survivors and non-survivors. The CART model area under the curve (AUC) 0.661 was superior to that of CURB-65 (0.609) and SOAR (0.589). CART sensitivity was 73.4%, and specificity 49.0%. CURB-65 and SOAR sensitivity for predicting 30-d mortality were 74.5 and 80.7%, and specificity was 42.3 and 33.9%, respectively. After smoothing, the CART model had higher sensitivity and specificity than both CURB-65 and SOAR. CONCLUSIONS: The new CART prediction model has higher specificity and better receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves than CURB-65 and SOAR score indices although its accuracy and sensitivity are only moderately better than the other systems. Key messages The new CART prediction model has higher specificity and better ROC curves than CURB-65 and SOAR score indices. However, accuracy and sensitivity of the new CART prediction model are only moderately better than the other systems in predicting 30-day mortality in CAP patients.
Authors: James D Chalmers; Joanne K Taylor; Pallavi Mandal; Gourab Choudhury; Aran Singanayagam; Ahsan R Akram; Adam T Hill Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: James D Chalmers; Pallavi Mandal; Aran Singanayagam; Ahsan R Akram; Gourab Choudhury; Philip M Short; Adam T Hill Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: S Ewig; N Birkner; R Strauss; E Schaefer; J Pauletzki; H Bischoff; P Schraeder; T Welte; G Hoeffken Journal: Thorax Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Carmen Gonzalez; Tami Johnson; Kenneth Rolston; Kelly Merriman; Carla Warneke; Scott Evans Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Alistair E W Johnson; Tom J Pollard; Lu Shen; Li-Wei H Lehman; Mengling Feng; Mohammad Ghassemi; Benjamin Moody; Peter Szolovits; Leo Anthony Celi; Roger G Mark Journal: Sci Data Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Deepak A Kaji; John R Zech; Jun S Kim; Samuel K Cho; Neha S Dangayach; Anthony B Costa; Eric K Oermann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240