DERIVATION AND VALIDATION OF A CLINICAL SCORE TO PREDICT DEATH AMONG NON-PALLIATIVE COVID-19 PATIENTS PRESENTING TO EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS: THE CCEDRRN COVID MORTALITY SCORE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Predicting mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using information available when patients present to the Emergency Department (ED) can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. Methods We conducted an observational study to develop and validate a clinical score to predict ED and in-hospital mortality among consecutive non-palliative COVID-19 patients. We recruited from 44 hospitals participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation, and pre-specified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort, and examined its performance in predicting ED and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort. Results Of 8,761 eligible patients, 618 (7·01%) died. The score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate, and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0·92 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0·91–0·93) in derivation and 0·92 (95%CI 0·89–0·93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. Above a score of 15, the observed mortality was 81·0% (81/100) with a specificity of 98·8% (95%CI 99·5–99·9%). Interpretation The CCEDRRN COVID Mortality Score is a simple score that accurately predicts mortality with variables that are available on patient arrival without the need for diagnostic tests. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".