MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802742967 · doi:10.1097/mat.0000000000000813

Evaluating Mortality Risk Adjustment Among Children Receiving Extracorporeal Support for Respiratory Failure

2018· article· en· W2802742967 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan P. Barbaro, Philip S. Boonstra, Kevin Kuo, David T. Selewski, David K. Bailly, Cheryl Stone, Chin Ying Chow, Gail M. Annich, Frank W. Moler, Matthew L. Paden

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCARE CanadaPediatric Oncology Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationRespiratory failureRisk of mortalityReceiver operating characteristicPediatric intensive care unitExtracorporealRetrospective cohort studyMortality rateEmergency medicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates whether three commonly used pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) severity of illness scores, pediatric risk of mortality score (PRISM) III, pediatric index of mortality (PIM) 2, and pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD), are the appropriate tools to discriminate mortality risk in children receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for respiratory failure. This study also evaluates the ability of the Pediatric Risk Estimate Score for Children Using Extracorporeal Respiratory Support (Ped-RESCUERS) to discriminate mortality risk in the same population, and whether Ped-RESCUERS' discrimination of mortality is improved by additional clinical and laboratory measures of renal, hepatic, neurologic, and hematologic dysfunction. A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted on children aged 29 days to 17 years with respiratory failure requiring respiratory ECMO support. Discrimination of mortality was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC); model calibration was measured by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test and Brier score. Admission PRISM-III, PIM-2, and PELOD were found to have poor ability to discriminate mortality with an AUC of 0.56 [0.46-0.66], 0.53 [0.43-0.62], and 0.57 [0.47-0.67], respectively. Alternatively, Ped-RESCUERS performed better with an AUC of 0.68 [0.59-0.77]. Higher alanine aminotransferase, ratio of the arterial partial pressure of oxygen the fraction of inspired oxygen, and lactic acidosis were independently associated with mortality and, when added to Ped-RESCUERS, resulted in an AUC of 0.75 [0.66-0.82]. Admission PRISM-III, PIM-2, and PELOD should not be used for pre-ECMO risk adjustment because they do not discriminate death. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation population-derived scores should be used to risk adjust ECMO populations as opposed to general PICU population-derived scores.

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)0.010
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207