MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2755665659 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.419

Performance of Early-Warning Scores in Predicting Mortality in an HIV-Infected Population with Sepsis in Uganda

2017· article· en· W2755665659 on OpenAlexaff
Riley Hazard, Christopher Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeEarly warning scoreGlasgow Coma ScaleSerostatusReceiver operating characteristicSepsisMewsInternal medicinePopulationArea under the curveEmergency medicineSurgeryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early-warning scores (EWS) have the potential to improve resource allocation and hasten care in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite the high prevalence of HIV infection in SSA, current EWS do not take into account HIV serostatus. We conducted a retrospective study at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital (MRRH) in Uganda to evaluate the performance of CRB-65, modified early-warning score (MEWS), quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA), rapid acute physiology score (RAPS), rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), South African triage scale (SATS), and shock index (SI) in predicting mortality among HIV-infected patients presenting with sepsis. We included patients admitted with sepsis to MRRH between January 2014 and December 2015 that had an HIV-positive serostatus and at least one valid heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, temperature, and oxygen saturation. Glasgow coma scale was imputed with the median. We used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) with tenfold cross-validation to assess the performance of each EWS. Of the 193 patients, the median (interquartile range) age was 34 (27, 42) years, 87 (45.0%) were female and 65 (44.6%) died. The AUC (95% confidence interval) was 0.53 (0.43, 0.62) for CRB65, 0.53 (0.44, 0.62) for MEWS, 0.57 (0.46, 0.68), for qSOFA, 0.60 (0.51, 0.69) for RAPS, 0.55 (0.46, 0.63) for REMS, 0.53 (0.45, 0.62) for SATS, and 0.54 (0.46, 0.63) for SI. The ability of EWS to predict mortality in an HIV-infected patient population with sepsis in Uganda was poor. EWS used in SSA should be derived from African patient populations and adjust for HIV serostatus. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→