MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325294495 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001205

Development and Validation of a Mortality Prediction Model for Patients Receiving 14 Days of Mechanical Ventilation

2015· article· en· W2325294495 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine L. Hough, Ellen Caldwell, Christopher E. Cox, Ivor S. Douglas, Jeremy M. Kahn, Douglas B. White, Eric J. Seeley, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Derek C. Angus, Shannon S. Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationCohortReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyVentilation (architecture)Area under the curveInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The existing risk prediction model for patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation is not applicable until after 21 days of mechanical ventilation. We sought to develop and validate a mortality prediction model for patients earlier in the ICU course using data from day 14 of mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Forty medical centers across the United States. PATIENTS: Adult patients receiving at least 14 days of mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Predictor variables were measured on day 14 of mechanical ventilation in the development cohort and included in a logistic regression model with 1-year mortality as the outcome. Variables were sequentially eliminated to develop the ProVent 14 model. This model was then generated in the validation cohort. A simplified prognostic scoring rule (ProVent 14 Score) using categorical variables was created in the development cohort and then tested in the validation cohort. Model discrimination was assessed by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve. Four hundred ninety-one patients and 245 patients were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The most parsimonious model included age, platelet count, requirement for vasopressors, requirement for hemodialysis, and nontrauma admission. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the ProVent 14 model using continuous variables was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83) in the development cohort and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83) in the validation cohort. The ProVent 14 Score categorized age at 50 and 65 years old and platelet count at 100×10(9)/L and had similar discrimination as the ProVent 14 model in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: Using clinical variables available on day 14 of mechanical ventilation, the ProVent 14 model can identify patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation with a high risk of mortality within 1 year.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207