Derivation and Validation of a Two-Variable Index to Predict 30-Day Outcomes Following Heart Failure Hospitalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The LACE index-length of stay (L), acuity (A), Charlson co-morbidities (C), and emergent visits (E)-predicts 30-day outcomes following heart failure (HF) hospitalization but is complex to score. A simpler LE index (length of stay and emergent visits) could offer a practical advantage in point-of-care risk prediction. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a sub-study of the patient-centred care transitions in HF (PACT-HF) multicentre trial. The derivation cohort comprised patients hospitalized for HF, enrolled in the trial, and followed prospectively. External validation was performed retrospectively in a cohort of patients hospitalized for HF. We used log-binomial regression models with LACE or LE as the predictor and either 30-day composite all-cause readmission or death or 30-day all-cause readmission as the outcomes, adjusting only for post-discharge services. There were 1985 patients (mean [SD] age 78.1 [12.1] years) in the derivation cohort and 378 (mean [SD] age 73.1 [13.2] years) in the validation cohort. Increments in the LACE and LE indices were associated with 17% (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.12, 1.21; C-statistic 0.64) and 21% (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.15, 1.26; C-statistic 0.63) increases, respectively, in 30-day composite all-cause readmission or death; and 16% (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11, 1.20; C-statistic 0.64) and 18% (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.13, 1.24; C-statistic 0.62) increases, respectively, in 30-day all-cause readmission. The LE index provided better risk discrimination for the 30-day outcomes than did the LACE index in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The LE index predicts 30-day outcomes following HF hospitalization with similar or better performance than the more complex LACE index.
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 | 0.083 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".