MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593405627 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v11i4.190

The Admission Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) Predicts the Risk of Critical Event during Hospitalization

2016· article· en· W2593405627 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Xu BHSc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEarly warning scoreEmergency medicineRetrospective cohort studyWorkloadEvent (particle physics)Critical illnessInternal medicineCritically ill

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Early warning scores detect patients at risk of deterioration in hospital. Our objective was to first, demonstrate that the admission Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) predicts critical events and second, estimate the workload required to identify critical events during hospitalization. Methods: We prospectively identified a consecutive cohort of medical/surgical patients for retrospective review. Critical events were defined as a composite of inpatient death, cardio-pulmonary arrest or ICU transfer. Likelihood of a critical event during hospitalization and the number needed to evaluate to detect a critical event was based on highest admission HEWS. Results: We found 506 critical events occurred in 7130 cases. HEWS identified graduated levels of risk at admission. We found 2.6 and 1.8 patients needed to be evaluated in the ‘high-risk’ and very ‘high-risk’ subgroups to detect a critical event. Conclusions: HEWS identified patients at risk for critical events during hospitalization at ward admission. Few patients with high HEWS required evaluation to detect a critical event.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207