Literature DB >> 35354159

The Global Open Source Severity of Illness Score (GOSSIS).

Jesse D Raffa1, Alistair E W Johnson1, Zach O'Brien2, Tom J Pollard1, Roger G Mark1,3, Leo A Celi1,3, David Pilcher1,2,3,4,5,6,7, Omar Badawi7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop and demonstrate the feasibility of a Global Open Source Severity of Illness Score (GOSSIS)-1 for critical care patients, which generalizes across healthcare systems and countries.
DESIGN: A merger of several critical care multicenter cohorts derived from registry and electronic health record data. Data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets, using each set exclusively for development and evaluation, respectively. Missing data were imputed when not available. SETTING/PATIENTS: Two large multicenter datasets from Australia and New Zealand (Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database [ANZICS-APD]) and the United States (eICU Collaborative Research Database [eICU-CRD]) representing 249,229 and 131,051 patients, respectively. ANZICS-APD and eICU-CRD contributed data from 162 and 204 hospitals, respectively. The cohort included all ICU admissions discharged in 2014-2015, excluding patients less than 16 years old, admissions less than 6 hours, and those with a previous ICU stay.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: GOSSIS-1 uses data collected during the ICU stay's first 24 hours, including extrema values for vital signs and laboratory results, admission diagnosis, the Glasgow Coma Scale, chronic comorbidities, and admission/demographic variables. The datasets showed significant variation in admission-related variables, case-mix, and average physiologic state. Despite this heterogeneity, test set discrimination of GOSSIS-1 was high (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.918; 95% CI, 0.915-0.921) and calibration was excellent (standardized mortality ratio [SMR], 0.986; 95% CI, 0.966-1.005; Brier score, 0.050). Performance was held within ANZICS-APD (AUROC, 0.925; SMR, 0.982; Brier score, 0.047) and eICU-CRD (AUROC, 0.904; SMR, 0.992; Brier score, 0.055). Compared with GOSSIS-1, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-IIIj (ANZICS-APD) and APACHE-IVa (eICU-CRD), had worse discrimination with AUROCs of 0.904 and 0.869, and poorer calibration with SMRs of 0.594 and 0.770, and Brier scores of 0.059 and 0.063, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: GOSSIS-1 is a modern, free, open-source inhospital mortality prediction algorithm for critical care patients, achieving excellent discrimination and calibration across three countries.
Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35354159      PMCID: PMC9233021          DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   9.296


  29 in total

1.  Caution when using prognostic models: a prospective comparison of 3 recent prognostic models.

Authors:  Antonio Paulo Nassar; Amilcar Oshiro Mocelin; André Luiz Baptiston Nunes; Fabio Poianas Giannini; Leonardo Brauer; Fabio Moreira Andrade; Carlos Augusto Dias
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 3.425

Review 2.  Severity of illness scoring systems in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  Mark T Keegan; Ognjen Gajic; Bekele Afessa
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 7.598

3.  Development and implementation of a high-quality clinical database: the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database.

Authors:  Peter J Stow; Graeme K Hart; Tracey Higlett; Carol George; Robert Herkes; David McWilliam; Rinaldo Bellomo
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.425

4.  Variation in ICU risk-adjusted mortality: impact of methods of assessment and potential confounders.

Authors:  Michael W Kuzniewicz; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Rondall Lane; Mitzi L Dean; Nisha G Trivedi; Deborah J Rennie; Ted Clay; Pamela L Kotler; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  How objective is the observed mortality following critical care?

Authors:  Maurizia Capuzzo; Otavio T Ranzani
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 6.  What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine.

Authors:  John C Marshall; Laura Bosco; Neill K Adhikari; Bronwen Connolly; Janet V Diaz; Todd Dorman; Robert A Fowler; Geert Meyfroidt; Satoshi Nakagawa; Paolo Pelosi; Jean-Louis Vincent; Kathleen Vollman; Janice Zimmerman
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.425

7.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Performance of APACHE III over time in Australia and New Zealand: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  E Paul; M Bailey; A Van Lint; V Pilcher
Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.669

Review 9.  Critical Care Registries: The Next Big Stride?

Authors:  Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan; Ramesh Venkatraman; Nagarajan Ramakrishnan
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-08

Review 10.  Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults.

Authors:  Neill K J Adhikari; Robert A Fowler; Satish Bhagwanjee; Gordon D Rubenfeld
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-10-11       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.