MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851421563 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.150209

External validation of the Hospital-patient One-year Mortality Risk (HOMR) model for predicting death within 1 year after hospital admission

2015· article· en· W1851421563 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Carl van Walraven, Finlay A. McAlister, Jeffrey A. Bakal, Steven Hawken, Jacques Donzé

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthOttawa HospitalAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeConfidence intervalEmergency medicineFramingham Risk ScoreCohortStatisticPopulationHospital admissionDemographyPediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental healthStatisticsDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Predicting long-term survival after admission to hospital is helpful for clinical, administrative and research purposes. The Hospital-patient One-year Mortality Risk (HOMR) model was derived and internally validated to predict the risk of death within 1 year after admission. We conducted an external validation of the model in a large multicentre study. METHODS: We used administrative data for all nonpsychiatric admissions of adult patients to hospitals in the provinces of Ontario (2003-2010) and Alberta (2011-2012), and to the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston (2010-2012) to calculate each patient's HOMR score at admission. The HOMR score is based on a set of parameters that captures patient demographics, health burden and severity of acute illness. We determined patient status (alive or dead) 1 year after admission using population-based registries. RESULTS: The 3 validation cohorts (n = 2,862,996 in Ontario, 210 595 in Alberta and 66,683 in Boston) were distinct from each other and from the derivation cohort. The overall risk of death within 1 year after admission was 8.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.7% to 8.8%). The HOMR score was strongly and significantly associated with risk of death in all populations and was highly discriminative, with a C statistic ranging from 0.89 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.91) to 0.92 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.92). Observed and expected outcome risks were similar (median absolute difference in percent dying in 1 yr 0.3%, interquartile range 0.05%-2.5%). INTERPRETATION: The HOMR score, calculated using routinely collected administrative data, accurately predicted the risk of death among adult patients within 1 year after admission to hospital for nonpsychiatric indications. Similar performance was seen when the score was used in geographically and temporally diverse populations. The HOMR model can be used for risk adjustment in analyses of health administrative data to predict long-term survival among hospital patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207