A multicenter mortality prediction model for patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Significant deficiencies exist in the communication of prognosis for patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation after acute illness, in part because of clinician uncertainty about long-term outcomes. We sought to refine a mortality prediction model for patients requiring prolonged ventilation using a multicentered study design. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Five geographically diverse tertiary care medical centers in the United States (California, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington). PATIENTS: Two hundred sixty adult patients who received at least 21 days of mechanical ventilation after acute illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the probability model, we included age, platelet count, and requirement for vasopressors and/or hemodialysis, each measured on day 21 of mechanical ventilation, in a logistic regression model with 1-yr mortality as the outcome variable. We subsequently modified a simplified prognostic scoring rule (ProVent score) by categorizing the risk variables (age 18-49, 50-64, and ≥65 yrs; platelet count 0-150 and >150; vasopressors; hemodialysis) in another logistic regression model and assigning points to variables according to β coefficient values. Overall mortality at 1 yr was 48%. The area under the curve of the receiver operator characteristic curve for the primary ProVent probability model was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.81), and the p value for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was .89. The area under the curve for the categorical model was 0.77, and the p value for the goodness-of-fit statistic was .34. The area under the curve for the ProVent score was 0.76, and the p value for the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was .60. For the 50 patients with a ProVent score >2, only one patient was able to be discharged directly home, and 1-yr mortality was 86%. CONCLUSION: The ProVent probability model is a simple and reproducible model that can accurately identify patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation who are at high risk of 1-yr mortality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".