Evaluation of Pneumonia Severity and Acute Physiology Scores to Predict ICU Admission and Mortality in Patients Hospitalized for Influenza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demand for inpatient medical services increases during influenza season. A scoring system capable of identifying influenza patients at low risk death or ICU admission could help clinicians make hospital admission decisions. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed influenza were identified over 3 influenza seasons at 25 Ontario hospitals. Each patient was assigned a score for 6 pneumonia severity and 2 sepsis scores using the first data available following their registration in the emergency room. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were the outcomes. Score performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the sensitivity and specificity for identifying low risk patients (risk of outcome <5%). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 607 adult patients. Mean age was 76 years, 12% of patients died (71/607) and 9% required ICU care (55/607). None of the scores examined demonstrated good discriminatory ability (AUC>or=0.80). The Pneumonia Severity Index (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.72-0.83) and the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score (AUC 0.77, 95% 0.71-0.83) demonstrated fair predictive ability (AUC>or=0.70) for in-hospital mortality. The best predictor of ICU admission was SMART-COP (AUC 0.73, 95% CI 0.67-0.79). All other scores were poor predictors (AUC <0.70) of either outcome. If patients classified as low risk for in-hospital mortality using the PSI were discharged, 35% of admissions would have been avoided. CONCLUSIONS: None of the scores studied were good predictors of in-hospital mortality or ICU admission. The PSI and MEDS score were fair predictors of death and if these results are validated, their use could reduce influenza admission rates significantly.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".