MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971095520 · doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2568-5

Outcomes of hospitalized hematologic oncology patients receiving rapid response system activation for acute deterioration

2019· article· en· W2971095520 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin Gershkovich, Shannon M. Fernando, Brent Herritt, Lana A. Castellucci, Bram Rochwerg, Laveena Munshi, Sangeeta Mehta, Andrew Seely, Daniel I. McIsaac, Alexandre Tran, Peter M. Reardon, Peter Tanuseputro, Kwadwo Kyeremanteng

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpactOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioSystemic inflammatory response syndromeEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with hematologic malignancies who are admitted to hospital are at increased risk of deterioration and death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) respond to hospitalized patients who clinically deteriorate. We sought to describe the characteristics and outcomes of hematologic oncology inpatients requiring rapid response system (RRS) activation, and to determine the prognostic accuracy of the SIRS and qSOFA criteria for in-hospital mortality of hematologic oncology patients with suspected infection. METHODS: We used registry data from two hospitals within The Ottawa Hospital network, between 2012 and 2016. Consecutive hematologic oncology inpatients who experienced activation of the RRS were included in the study. Data was gathered at the time of RRS activation and assessment. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Logistical regression was used to evaluate for predictors of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 401 patients during the study period. In-hospital mortality for all included patients was 41.9% (168 patients), and 145 patients (45%) were admitted to ICU following RRS activation. Among patients with suspected infection at the time of RRS activation, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria had a sensitivity of 86.9% (95% CI 80.9-91.6) and a specificity of 38.2% (95% CI 31.9-44.8) for predicting in-hospital mortality, while Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria had a sensitivity of 61.9% (95% CI 54.1-69.3) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 87.1-94.7). Factors associated with increased in-hospital mortality included transfer to ICU after RRS activation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.56, 95% CI 2.12-5.97) and a higher number of RRS activations (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.63-3.69). Factors associated with improved survival included active malignancy treatment at the time of RRS activation (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.86) and longer hospital length of stay (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Hematologic oncology inpatients requiring RRS activation have high rates of subsequent ICU admission and mortality. ICU admission and higher number of RRS activations are associated with increased risk of death, while active cancer treatment and longer hospital stay are associated with lower risk of mortality. Clinicians should consider these factors in risk-stratifying these patients during RRS assessment.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207