MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100264992 · doi:10.1186/cc5007

SOFA is superior to MOD score for the determination of non-neurologic organ dysfunction in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a cohort study

2006· article· en· W2100264992 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Zygun, Luc Berthiaume, Kevin B. Laupland, John B. Kortbeek, Christopher J. Doig

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSOFA scoreIntensive care unitOrgan dysfunctionOdds ratioMultiple organ dysfunction syndromeTraumatic brain injuryConfidence intervalIntensive carePopulationInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the discriminative ability of the SOFA and MOD scoring systems with respect to hospital mortality and unfavorable neurologic outcome in patients with severe traumatic brain injury admitted to intensive care. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study at Foothills Medical Centre, the sole adult tertiary care trauma center servicing southern Alberta (population approximately 1.3 million) All patients >or=16 years of age and older with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) and intensive care unit length of stay > 48 hours between May 1, 2000 and April 31, 2003 were included. Non-neurologic organ dysfunction was measured by the SOFA and MODS scoring systems. Comparison of the SOFA and MOD score determination of organ dysfunction for each non-neurological organ system was examined by calculating the proportion of patients with SOFA and MOD component score defined organ failure. Consistent with previous literature, organ system failure was defined as a component score >or=3. RESULTS: The odds of death and unfavorable neurologic outcome in patients with SOFA defined cardiovascular failure were 14.7 times (95% CI: 5.9-36.3) and 7.6 times (95% CI 3.5-16.3) respectively, that of those without cardiovascular failure. The development of SOFA defined cardiovascular failure was a reasonable discriminator of hospital mortality and unfavorable neurologic outcome (AuROC=0.75 and 0.73, respectively). The odds of death and unfavorable neurologic outcome in patients with MOD defined cardiovascular failure were 2.6 times (95% CI: 1.24-5.26) and 4.1 times (95% CI 1.3-12.4) respectively, that of those without cardiovascular failure. The development of MOD defined cardiovascular failure was a poor discriminator of hospital mortality and unfavorable neurologic outcome (AuROC=0.57 and 0.59 respectively). Both SOFA and MOD defined respiratory failure were not statistically associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with brain injury, the SOFA scoring system has superior discriminative ability and stronger association with outcome compared to the MOD scoring system with respect to hospital mortality and unfavorable neurologic outcome.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations67
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207