MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922103988 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.181186

A disease-specific comorbidity index for predicting mortality in patients admitted to hospital with a cardiac condition

2019· article· en· W2922103988 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lorenzo Azzalini, Malorie Chabot-Blanchet, Danielle A. Southern, Anna Nozza, Stephen B. Wilton, Michelle M. Graham, Guillaume Gravel, Jean-Pierre Bluteau, Jean L. Rouleau, Marie-Claude Guertin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversity of Alberta
FundersInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAGE-WELL
KeywordsComorbidityMedicinePopulationInternal medicineStatisticConfidence intervalCohortEmergency medicineLogistic regressionCharlson comorbidity indexDiseaseAkaike information criterionPhysical therapyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity indexes derived from administrative databases are essential tools of research in global health. We sought to develop and validate a novel cardiac-specific comorbidity index, and to compare its accuracy with the generic Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes. METHODS: We derived the cardiac-specific comorbidity index from consecutive patients who were admitted to hospital at a tertiary-care cardiology hospital in Quebec. We used logistic regression analysis and incorporated age, sex and 22 clinically relevant comorbidities to build the index. We compared the cardiac-specific comorbidity index with refitted Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes using the C-statistic and net reclassification improvement to predict in-hospital death, and the Akaike information criterion to predict length of stay. We validated our findings externally in an independent cohort obtained from a provincial registry of coronary disease in Alberta. RESULTS: = 17 877), the cardiac-specific comorbidity index was similarly better: C-statistic 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94) v. 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.81) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.86), respectively, and also numerically outperformed the Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes for predicting 1-year mortality (C-statistic 0.78 [95% CI 0.76-0.80] v. 0.75 [95% CI 0.73-0.77] and 0.77 [95% CI 0.75-0.79], respectively). Similarly, the cardiac-specific comorbidity index showed better fit for the prediction of length of stay. The net reclassification improvement using the cardiac-specific comorbidity index for the prediction of death was 0.290 compared with the Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index and 0.192 compared with the Elixhauser comorbidity index. INTERPRETATION: The cardiac-specific comorbidity index predicted in-hospital and 1-year death and length of stay in cardiovascular populations better than existing generic models. This novel index may be useful for research of cardiology outcomes performed with large administrative databases.

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)0.009
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→