MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mortality predictions in the intensive care unit: Comparing physicians with scoring systems*

2006· review· en· W2007553222 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHealth Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersAmerican Thoracic Society
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicConfidence intervalOdds ratioCochrane LibraryIntensive care unitMEDLINECINAHLDiagnostic odds ratioIntensive careOddsObservational studyMeta-analysisEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineStatisticsInternal medicineLogistic regressionPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Risk-prediction models offer potential advantages over physician predictions of outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our systematic review compared the accuracy of ICU physicians' and scoring system predictions of ICU or hospital mortality of critically ill adults. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE (1966-2005), CINAHL (1982-2005), Ovid Healthstar (1975-2004), EMBASE (1980-2005), SciSearch (1980-2005), PsychLit (1985-2004), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2005), PubMed "related articles," personal files, abstract proceedings, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: We considered all studies that compared physician predictions of ICU or hospital survival of critically ill adults to an objective scoring system, computer model, or prediction rule. We excluded studies if they focused exclusively on the development or economic evaluation of a scoring system, computer model, or prediction rule. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently abstracted data and assessed study quality in duplicate. We determined summary receiver operating characteristic curves and areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves+/-se and summary diagnostic odds ratios. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 12 observational studies of moderate methodological quality. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves for seven studies was 0.85+/-0.03 for physician predictions compared with 0.63+/-0.06 for scoring system predictions (p=.002). Physicians' summary diagnostic odds ratios derived from the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were significantly higher (12.43; 95% confidence interval 5.47, 27.11) than scoring systems' summary diagnostic odds ratios (2.25; 95% confidence interval 0.78, 6.52, p=.001). Combined results of all 12 studies indicated that physicians predict mortality more accurately than do scoring systems: ratio of diagnostic odds ratios (95% confidence interval) 1.92 (1.19, 3.08) (p=.007). CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies suggest that ICU physicians discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors more accurately than do scoring systems in the first 24 hrs of ICU admission. The overall accuracy of both predictions of patient mortality was moderate, implying limited usefulness of outcome prediction in the first 24 hrs for clinical decision making.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.178 · 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