Derivation and Validation of a Clinical Model to Predict Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay After Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Across the globe, elective surgeries have been postponed to limit infectious exposure and preserve hospital capacity for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, the ramp down in cardiac surgery volumes may result in unintended harm to patients who are at high risk of mortality if their conditions are left untreated. To help optimize triage decisions, we derived and ambispectively validated a clinical score to predict intensive care unit length of stay after cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Following ethics approval, we derived and performed multicenter valida tion of clinical models to predict the likelihood of short (≤2 days) and prolonged intensive care unit length of stay (≥7 days) in patients aged ≥18 years, who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and/or aortic, mitral, and tricuspid value surgery in Ontario, Canada. Multivariable logistic regression with backward variable selection was used, along with clinical judgment, in the modeling process. For the model that predicted short intensive care unit stay, the c‐statistic was 0.78 in the derivation cohort and 0.71 in the validation cohort. For the model that predicted prolonged stay, c‐statistic was 0.85 in the derivation and 0.78 in the validation cohort. The models, together termed the CardiOttawa LOS Score , demonstrated a high degree of accuracy during prospective testing. Conclusions Clinical judgment alone has been shown to be inaccurate in predicting postoperative intensive care unit length of stay. The CardiOttawa LOS Score performed well in prospective validation and will complement the clinician's gestalt in making more efficient resource allocation during the COVID‐19 period and beyond.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".