MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314168855 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000000457

Using the age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index to predict outcomes in emergency general surgery

2015· article· en· W2314168855 on OpenAlexaffabout
Etienne St‐Louis, Sameena Iqbal, Liane S. Feldman, Monisha Sudarshan, Dan Deckelbaum, Tarek Razek, Kosar Khwaja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharlson comorbidity indexComorbidityIndex (typography)MedicineAge adjustmentGerontologyInternal medicineComputer scienceEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the role of the Charlson age-comorbidity index (CACI), a weighted comorbidity index that reflects cumulative increased likelihood of 1-year mortality, in predicting perioperative outcomes in an emergency general surgery population at a large Canadian teaching hospital. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of emergency general surgery admissions in 2010 was conducted. Patients who had surgery were identified. Mode of surgery and CACI were recorded, as well as measures of outcome, including 30-day mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A multivariate stepwise logistic regression model was created to assess the effect of age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index on postoperative outcomes while controlling for the effect of possible confounders. The prediction ability of CACI for mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analyses considering the area under the curve and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of the 529 admissions to general surgery from the emergency department, 257 patients underwent a surgical intervention. The CACI scores ranged from 0 to 16. We described a total of 11 deaths (4.3%) and 30 ICU admissions (11.7%). CACI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio,1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.73; p = 0.0034). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was consistent with high accuracy of CACI for mortality prediction alone, resulting in area under the curve or c statistic of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95). CACI was similar in predicting mortality to a multivariate model. CACI was also found to be associated with ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.37; p < 0.0382). CACI is not as good a predictor for ICU admission when compared with the multivariate model. CONCLUSION: We have shown that the CACI is a valid tool for 30-day mortality prediction in the context of emergency general surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations105
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207