Characterizing the Patients, Hospitals, and Data Quality of the eICU Collaborative Research Database*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The eICU Collaborative Research Database is a publicly available repository of granular data from more than 200,000 ICU admissions. The quantity and variety of its entries hold promise for observational critical care research. We sought to understand better the data available within this resource to guide its future use. DESIGN: We conducted a descriptive analysis of the eICU Collaborative Research Database, including patient, practitioner, and hospital characteristics. We investigated the completeness of demographic and hospital data, as well as those values required to calculate an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score. We also assessed the rates of ventilation, intubation, and dialysis, and looked for potential errors in the vital sign data. SETTING: American ICUs that participated in the Philips Healthcare eICU program between 2014 and 2015. PATIENTS: A total of 139,367 individuals who were admitted to one of the 335 participating ICUs between 2014 and 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Most encounters were from small- and medium-sized hospitals, and managed by nonintensivists. The median ICU length of stay was 1.57 days (interquartile range, 0.82-2.97 d). The median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV-predicted ICU mortality was 2.2%, with an observed mortality of 5.4%. Rates of ventilation (20-33%), intubation (15-24%), and dialysis (3-5%) varied according to the query method used. Most vital sign readings fell into realistic ranges, with manually curated data less likely to contain implausible results than automatically entered data. CONCLUSIONS: Data in the eICU Collaborative Research Database are for the most part complete and plausible. Some ambiguity exists in determining which encounters are associated with various interventions, most notably mechanical ventilation. Caution is warranted in extrapolating findings from the eICU Collaborative Research Database to larger ICUs with higher acuity.
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 | 0.067 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".